>> On a technical note, I think it makes more sense to associate embedded
>> applications with Emacs windows, rather than buffers as you're
>> apparently trying to do. Â Otherwise, we run into the problem of
>> handling
>> the situation where the same buffer is displayed in more than one
>> window. Â Basically, we should have a way to say "the contents of this
>> window are handled by an embedded program, rather than by Emacs".
>> Â WDYT?
>
> You perhaps still need some buffer elements otherwise the embedded
> application would go away when you closed a window. That could maybe
> be ok, but it is not the way use to behave in Emacs.
>
> Other than that I think it is a good suggestion.
I would say that there should be an "embed object" (sort of like a process
object), and you can do
(set-window-embed window embed)
which fails if EMBED is already associated with some other window. You
would of course have `window-embed' and `embed-window' which would tell
you that association, so that you could do (set-window-embed (embed-window
embed) nil) to detach it and move it around.
(One could also write it as `set-embed-window', which might make the
single-valuedness of the "embed's window" property clearer. But I think
it's important to consider it a property of the window because it
overrides everything else that window could ever do.)
Davis
--
This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.
