help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: help-gnu-emacs Digest, Vol 144, Issue 66


From: Li Shuai
Subject: Re: help-gnu-emacs Digest, Vol 144, Issue 66
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:45:42 +0800

Thank you very much, Leo and Stefan! I have fixed the problem. Now octave
under emacs works like a charm.

This is the first time I try to ask for help from community instead of
always trying to solve it by myself or delay the solving. Pretty nice
experience. I did not expect it to be solved so quickly. Thanks again!

Shuai
Best

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:55 PM, <help-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org> wrote:

> Send help-gnu-emacs mailing list submissions to
>         help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         help-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         help-gnu-emacs-owner@gnu.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of help-gnu-emacs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Why is it not possible to use "nil" any more in init
>       files ? (Alexandre Oberlin)
>    2. Re: Need help about octave integration on emacs 24.3 (Leo Liu)
>    3. RE: How to truly unbind global bindings? (Drew Adams)
>    4. RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows? (Drew Adams)
>    5. RE: When do you prefer windows instead of frames? Was: When
>       do you    prefer frames instead of windows? (Drew Adams)
>    6. RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows? (Drew Adams)
>    7. RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows? (Drew Adams)
>    8. RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?
>       (Gian Uberto Lauri)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:07:39 +0100
> From: "Alexandre Oberlin" <email_via_web@migo.info>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Why is it not possible to use "nil" any more in init
>         files ?
> Message-ID: <op.xpvyy1fofjdmwo@tournesol>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Thanks Phillip for your answer.
>
> You wrote:
> >> From my perspective, most people who write
> > (hated-mode nil)
> > are likely to be able to work out what is happening, while someone who
> > accidentally writes
> > (wanted-mode)
> > and later
> > (wanted-mode)
> > has a more pernicuous problem.
>
> So the toggling functions have been broken too!? Anyway I?d say most such
> users don?t write, they just click/touch.
>
> Now do you mean that for emacs developers too, unlearned user mistakes
> driven interfacing has become the guiding principle? I use *n?x systems
> because I preferred to learn a few things from the start and then know
> what happens and get what I want. Now this is more and more difficult as
> the (supposed) average behaviour of occasional users rules (and constantly
> changes, as well as its perception by new developers). Users who need to
> work productively are getting nervous because they don?t have time to
> spend playing with their configurations at each new release of any piece
> of software. Breaking backward compatibility had always been a NONO, even
> at Microsoft.
>
> IMHO this "intuitive" paradigm is OK for phones/tablets, at least if some
> consensus can be found. And we all know that casual users will more and
> more use phones/tablets, not computers any more. As for the more motivated
> users, they should rather be helped with some good principles and
> tutorials, and not the developers adapt to their initial shortcomings.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Alexandre
>
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:50:22 +0100, Phillip Lord
> <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > Clearly, if the interface has changed it runs the risk of breaking some
> > statements which were previously fulfilling the programmers intent.
> > This, of course, is irritating for those affected, but that doesn't make
> > it wrong.
> >
> >> From my perspective, most people who write
> >
> > (hated-mode nil)
> >
> > are likely to be able to work out what is happening, while someone who
> > accidentally writes
> >
> > (wanted-mode)
> >
> > and later
> >
> > (wanted-mode)
> >
> > has a more pernicuous problem.
> >
> > I always used
> >
> > (hated-mode 0)
> >
> > which seems to be more intuitive than passing nil. Perhaps this is why
> > the change did not irritate me.
> >
> >
> > Alexandre Oberlin <email_via_web@migo.info> writes:
> >
> >> Thanks Stefan for this explanation. So IIUC that trick broke some
> >> correct
> >> .emacs in order to magically fix some broken ones?
> >>
> >> Alexandre
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:37:04 +0100, Stefan Monnier
> >> <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I know that departing from proven approaches for no sensible reason
> >>>> is top
> >>>> of the art but is there any kind of other rationale to make the thing
> >>>> not
> >>>> backward-compatible?
> >>>
> >>> Of course, there's a reason: All minor modes since Emacs-23 (IIRC)
> >>> should turn themselves ON when called with a nil argument, so you don't
> >>> need turn-on-FOO-mode and you can just say:
> >>>
> >>>    (add-hook 'bar-mode-hook 'foo-mode)
> >>>
> >>> The better part of this incompatible change is that it silently *fixed*
> >>> many people's .emacs since many people already used:
> >>>
> >>>    (add-hook 'bar-mode-hook 'foo-mode)
> >>>
> >>> without realizing that this could actually turn the mode OFF in
> >>> some cases.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>         Stefan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:26:09 +0800
> From: Leo Liu <sdl.web@gmail.com>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Need help about octave integration on emacs 24.3
> Message-ID: <87lhmzl2su.fsf@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On 2014-11-25 09:12 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > It is: there's an autoload of the `octave-mode' function which fetches
> > the function from `octave-mod'.  So you either have to overwrite it with
> > your own autoload, or you can simply (load "octave") which will
> > overwrite the autoload with the actual function.
>
> Indeed. In other words put (require 'octave) in your init file.
>
> Leo
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:43:29 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: Alexander Shukaev <haroogan@gmail.com>, help-gnu-emacs
>         <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> Subject: RE: How to truly unbind global bindings?
> Message-ID: <c2d9b801-f3c8-4c2f-912b-e6b4ceca5019@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> > The answer was:
> > (use-global-map (make-sparse-keymap))
>
> Why do you want to do this?  (Doesn't sound advisable, to me.)
>
> Perhaps if you describe your use case/scenario, people will
> have something useful to suggest.  I cannot imagine why anyone
> would try to replace the `global-map' with a new, sparse keymap.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:46:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: Gian Uberto Lauri <saint@eng.it>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Raffaele Ricciardi <rfflrccrd@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?
> Message-ID: <db3cc1ca-53b7-472d-ad8c-258e97d1650f@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >  > I would ask an opposite question: IF you could use Emacs frames
> >  > as easily as you can use Emacs windows, in what scenarios would
> >  > you prefer using Emacs windows, and why?
> >
> > ...mail reading, sql interaction and when working on two parts of
> > the same file or two files with a macro...
> >
> > If the frames could really be used like windows, then, it could be
> > that I would be comfortable with separate frames.
>
> That was the question.  "IF you could use frames as easily as you
> can use Emacs windows..."  I certainly agree that currently you
> cannot, especially with just vanilla Emacs.  But if you could...
>
> > create several WindowMaker application icons with a single Emacs
> > instance, and using a different image for each application icon.
>
> That sounds like something that would pertain only to certain
> platforms, since different platforms have different notions of
> "icon" etc.  But the ability you mention sounds like it might
> be useful.
>
> > This was nice because that let me associate a certain frame with a
> > certain workspace (i.e. e-mail on workspace 1 and db-interaction on
> > workspace 6) and use a click on the application icon to jump to that
> > workspace.
>
> FYI, you can use bookmarks to similar effect.  With Bookmark+ you
> can just jump to this or that desktop bookmark, to change between
> Emacs "workspaces", as defined by desktop.el.  And it doesn't
> matter whether you use one frame or 37 frames for such a workspace.
>
> http://www.emacswiki.org/BookmarkPlus#DesktopBookmarks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:46:58 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: When do you prefer windows instead of frames? Was: When
>         do you  prefer frames instead of windows?
> Message-ID: <c9986f7f-949b-44d5-b62c-6eac8c9d24f5@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> > > I would ask an opposite question: IF you could use Emacs frames
> > > as easily as you can use Emacs windows, in what scenarios would
> > > you prefer using Emacs windows, and why?
> >
> > For supporting tasks only: Imagine you are starting from a full-screen
> > window and want to see temporarily a variable definition in a second
> > window while still hacking away.  The advantage is that window
> > operations, like C-x } enlarge-window-horizontally,
> > delete-other-windows-vertically,... operate simultaneously on all
> > windows.  In such situations it seems to me much more convenient to
> > use windows than set it up with frames.
>
> Again - but what "IF you could use Emacs frames as easily as you
> can use Emacs windows"?  That's the question.
>
> Pop up a *Help* frame instead of a *Help* window to show help.  Hit
> `C-x 0' to get rid of that frame when you're done.  You probably do
> not need to resize the frame (e.g., if the frame is automatically
> fit to the size of just the *Help* text).  But if you do, then use
> keys to resize it, just as you would for a window.
>
> IOW, think past what you can do with a window (resize, move, control
> where it pops up, etc.) that you think you cannot easily do with a
> frame now.
>
> I certainly agree that if frames are not made as convenient to
> interact with (i.e., the same kinds of operations you use on
> windows) then Emacs windows remain useful.  But if Emacs *did*
> support such operations with frames, out of the box,...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:47:10 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de>, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?
> Message-ID: <4a56056d-6a48-48ea-a80f-448057dce7f4@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> > Single frame for Ediff: A on top, B in the middle, Control at
> > bottom.  The separate control frame is a nuisance with
> > focus-follows-mouse, it almost always is out of focus, loses
> > the cursor, or misbehaves in other fashions...
>
> Seems like that is something that could be fixed.  Have you
> thought about filing a bug report / enhancement request?
> (`M-x report-emacs-bug')
>
> FWIW, I've been using Ediff with separate frames for decades,
> and I don't have any such problem.  But I don't use
> `focus-follows-mouse'.
>
> In principle, Ediff should play well with separate frames.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:47:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: Rainer M Krug <Rainer@krugs.de>
> Cc: Raffaele Ricciardi <rfflrccrd@gmail.com>, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org,
>         Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com>
> Subject: RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?
> Message-ID: <e48501bd-b9a2-48a9-bd1e-41381fc40a99@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> > > You need to be able to do the same kinds of things with frames
> > > that you can do with Emacs windows - *from the keyboard* (and with
> > > a mouse). Including move around incrementally, resize
> > > incrementally, cycle/choose, tile/split, and so on.
> > >
> > > I use Emacs that way, but as I say, this is not provided out of
> > > the box with `emacs -Q'.  (It should be, IMO.)
> >
> > You are throwing teaser around - is your emacs config some=where
> > on=ine, so that I could take a look at your configuration regarding
> > frames?
>
> I really did not mean it that way.  I'm more interested here in
> looking at the use cases that people might think really apply to
> Emacs windows inherently.
>
> It's about a thought experiment: WHAT IF you could easily do with
> frames what you do with windows, using the keyboard (or the mouse)?
> Would you still see some scenarios where you would prefer to use
> a window?  If so, what would they be?
>
> I do use code that tries to make frames more convenient to use, but
> that really is beside the point of my question.  What I would like
> is for vanilla Emacs to provide frame-friendly manipulation.
>
> I do understand that Emacs does not have real control over
> window-manager windows (i.e., frames); it can only request/suggest
> changes to be made by the window manager.  And different platforms
> & window managers are different, so it is likely that there would
> never be a 100% cross-platform solution with the level of control
> that we have with Emacs windows.
>
> Still, I know from my own experience that it is possible to obtain
> pretty much all of the control I expect, at least across GNU/Linux,
> UNIX, and MS Windows - I can't vouch for others.
>
>
> [If you do want to try the code I use, just to get an idea of what
> I mean, look here: http://www.emacswiki.org/OneOnOneEmacs.
> But again, I'm *not* proposing such code as the solution or even
> as *a* solution to the problem of easily doing with frames what
> you do with Emacs windows.  This is code that I use to try to
> overcome the problem, imperfectly.  That's all.]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:54:54 +0100
> From: "Gian Uberto Lauri" <saint@eng.it>
> To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: Raffaele Ricciardi <rfflrccrd@gmail.com>, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org,
>         Gian Uberto Lauri <saint@eng.it>
> Subject: RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?
> Message-ID: <21620.42574.322318.854514@mail.eng.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Drew Adams writes:
>  > >  > I would ask an opposite question: IF you could use Emacs frames
>  > >  > as easily as you can use Emacs windows, in what scenarios would
>  > >  > you prefer using Emacs windows, and why?
>  > >
>  > > ...mail reading, sql interaction and when working on two parts of
>  > > the same file or two files with a macro...
>  > >
>  > > If the frames could really be used like windows, then, it could be
>  > > that I would be comfortable with separate frames.
>  >
>  > That was the question.  "IF you could use frames as easily as you
>  > can use Emacs windows..."  I certainly agree that currently you
>  > cannot, especially with just vanilla Emacs.  But if you could...
>
> Frankly, the answer is "I can't answer until I see it working".
> But it could be yes, especially if it changes my habits only slightly.
>
>  > FYI, you can use bookmarks to similar effect.  With Bookmark+ you
>  > can just jump to this or that desktop bookmark, to change between
>  > Emacs "workspaces", as defined by desktop.el.  And it doesn't
>  > matter whether you use one frame or 37 frames for such a workspace.
>  >
>  > http://www.emacswiki.org/BookmarkPlus#DesktopBookmarks
>
> I will give it a look, thank you!
>
> --
>  /\           ___                                    Ubuntu: ancient
> /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____               African word
>   //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico            meaning "I can
> \/                 coltivatore diretto di software       not install
>      gi? sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...                Debian"
>
> Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> help-gnu-emacs mailing list
> help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
>
>
> End of help-gnu-emacs Digest, Vol 144, Issue 66
> ***********************************************
>


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]