>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>> "ms" == Michael Sperber
<sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
ms> Previous messages in this thread explain it:
Stephen> If they did, I wouldn't have asked. ;-)
Which is why I tried to explain once more ;-)
ms> I conjecture this assumption was born in the time before
ms> multiple frames. There, you always type into the selected
ms> window, which is why you want the invariant the way it is.
Stephen> And in multiple frames you can type into an unselected
Stephen> window? Huh?
No, but you can type into a window that's not the selected window of a
given frame---namely, the selected window, of *another* frame.
ms> Now, it makes sense if the selected window *of the selected
ms> frame* maintains that invariant, but not for *all* frames.
Stephen> That's easy for you to say. Now turn it into a coherent
Stephen> specification of a unique point associated to a buffer. [...]
I don't understand what you're saying after this at all, I'm afraid. :-(
Let me try to explain once again:
The synchronization between the window point of the selected window
and its buffer's point is necessary so that commands *you type* will
DTRT, namely act at the point where the user is typing. There's no
reason for this synchronicity to be in place in windows where the user
is *not* typing. (In this case, selected windows of unselected
frames.) There'd be no heuristics involved at all.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla