11:01 a.m.
Andy Piper <andy(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>Ah, great! Is this documented somewhere? The thing is driving
me
No, because it is not the Right Way. The right way is to customize
gutter-visible-p which should be self documenting.
You mean the variable `gutter-visible-p' has no effect if setq'ed?
That seems evil.
The gutter code could check whether gutter-visible-p is non-nil, and
choose to redraw the gutter according to that.
7:10 p.m.
New subject: That gutter again
Hrvoje Niksic writes:
Andy Piper <andy(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> >Ah, great! Is this documented somewhere? The thing is driving me
>
> No, because it is not the Right Way. The right way is to customize
> gutter-visible-p which should be self documenting.
You mean the variable `gutter-visible-p' has no effect if setq'ed?
That seems evil.
The gutter code could check whether gutter-visible-p is non-nil, and
choose to redraw the gutter according to that.
That variable seems strange to me. But then so does
toolbar-visible-p. I don't think either of these variables
should exist. There are specifiers that should be used instead.
As with the toolbar, the way to turn off the gutter is to set the
appropriate specifier.
(set-specifier top-gutter-visible-p nil)
8:35 p.m.
New subject: That gutter again
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:10:28 PST, Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> said:
That variable seems strange to me. But then so does
toolbar-visible-p. I don't think either of these variables
should exist. There are specifiers that should be used instead.
Urp. Gak. Gronk.
If toolbar-visible-p isn't the way to do it, why is that what
'customize' scribbled into my .xemacs/init.el?
Also, apropos on 'toolbar' flags these as 'user variables':
bottom-toolbar-visible-p
default-toolbar-visible-p
left-toolbar-visible-p
right-toolbar-visible-p
top-toolbar-visible-p
Guess what? toolbar-visible-p doesn't have the '*' flagging it
as a user variable.
But that's what customize scribbled into my files. What's wrong
with this picture?
Also, getting rid of a *VARIABLE* that can be *found* with 'apropos'
is *EVIL EVIL EVIL* until we have an equally-simple way to find
the specifier you want to use instead.
I typed control-h a toolbar <ret>. I got all the info I needed
to get toolbars to work the way I wanted, and then some - I found
'toolbar-gnus' which I'd been searching for. ;)
What's the equivalent easy way to find what specifier to attach to
what to get the same behavior? I did an apropos on 'specifier'
and found *NOT ONE* function or variable flagged with the '*' user
variable tag.
What's wrong with THIS picture?
Sorry for the ranting, but....
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
8:38 p.m.
New subject: That gutter again
Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu writes:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:10:28 PST, Kyle Jones
<kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> said:
> That variable seems strange to me. But then so does
> toolbar-visible-p. I don't think either of these variables
> should exist. There are specifiers that should be used instead.
Urp. Gak. Gronk.
If toolbar-visible-p isn't the way to do it, why is that what
'customize' scribbled into my .xemacs/init.el?
Beats me. I'm just telling you how to do it. I agree that if you
can't find information on how to do this simple thing, then we
have a problem.
8:54 p.m.
New subject: That gutter again
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:38:43 PST, Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> said:
Beats me. I'm just telling you how to do it. I agree that if
you
can't find information on how to do this simple thing, then we
have a problem.
<insert sound of fuel cell detonating>
Houston, we have a problem....
11:09 p.m.
New subject: That gutter again
>>>> "VK" == Valdis Kletnieks
<Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> writes:
VK> Urp. Gak. Gronk.
VK>
VK> If toolbar-visible-p isn't the way to do it, why is that what
VK> 'customize' scribbled into my .xemacs/init.el?
even worse than this is...
;; Nuke toolbar. If you know you never want a toolbar, better to
;; disable it via X resources, since whereas doing it here causes it
;; to be drawn then erased, doing it via X resources nukes it from the
;; outset (which is much better if, for example, you want to use
;; XEmacs over a modem.
(add-spec-list-to-specifier default-toolbar-visible-p '((global (nil))))
this used to be the case, at least - if it has changed, my apologies -
I admit I didn't check...
in addition:
o disabling via X resources can be problematic if displaying on a PC
or Mac via an X server like Exceed or X-Win32
o it's somehow nicer to be able to do everything via elisp
--
John A. Turner, Senior Research Associate
Blue Sky Studios, One South Rd, Harrison, NY 10528
http://www.blueskystudios.com/ (914) 381-8400
2:47 a.m.
New subject: That gutter again
>>>> "Valdis" == Valdis Kletnieks
<Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> writes:
Valdis> Urp. Gak. Gronk.
Valdis> If toolbar-visible-p isn't the way to do it, why is that
Valdis> what 'customize' scribbled into my .xemacs/init.el?
Because customize reimplements specifier functionality. Then in the
XEmacs version its low-level implementation touches the appropriate
specifier after setting properties on the symbols customize uses.
Customize is totally embarrassed at any explicit mention of specifiers
because customize wants to be cross platform and the FSF doesn't have
specifiers.
Allegedly there are some things that customize wants to do that can't
be implemented with specifiers. It's on my to-do list, but customize
code is hard to understand.
Customize is very like Mule in some ways....
Valdis> Sorry for the ranting, but....
Been there.
--
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________ _________________ _________________ _________________
What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."
9061
days inactive
9062
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Hrvoje Niksic -
John A. Turner -
Kyle Jones -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Valdis Kl=?iso8859-4?Q?=BA?=tnieks