Re: [STUMP] tree-height and tree-width

[Magnus Henoch]

Shawn Betts <address@hidden> writes:

> Given that the number of frames are probably never going to be more than
> 9, walking the tree twice is probably fine. Also, having tree-bottom and
> tree-right would be useful anyway. I see no problem with your proposal.

Like this:

txteAnEdBHtLh.txt
Description: Patch to core.lisp fixing tree-*

Unfortunately this doesn't fix the problem I thought it would solve.
If you have frames like this:

+-------+-------+
|       |   1   |
|       |       |
|   0   +-------+
|       |   2   |
|       |       |
+-------+-------+

and remove first 1, then 2, frame 0 will cover twice the height of the
screen.  My patch doesn't change that a bit.  I'll keep investigating.

While I'm here, a patch to make C-t C-n not abort in an empty frame:

txtg5tpbzlxi0.txt
Description: Patch to user.lisp

Magnus