|[Sawfish] Beginner's Rep Question|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/sawfish Archives
- To: "sawfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sawfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [Sawfish] Beginner's Rep Question
- From: Richard <r_j_humphreys@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:42:37 +0000 (GMT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1359585757; bh=E/LqGjAW3/vGNr2d/ql6wRaHt5qlD8SEN0DqRl6ojqU=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=K/aJdz7mDl85j3KEMq5ojWbclA2cnnPmYWtzbBBEE2nFoofmZoV8FHhEwzaLrRVrtt07PgOnwQ1unCEgPy8bYx+TC0QGM00QaL4sDIYg+o17KErSXPM/L5WT+nnHR33XGGb2ymyOmCYcB0s4uFSWXY4WF8TXNeMqTsY5fJDCvR4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=xY01QvuGJAhMjgldoVArISeRhDIPRqKl4PkV3hgkhKgycHXT8ONRPoOsWMYUgeVrEPlJbDOmRrlFNur5hAtHUziL6TQD5VPe/MqQ5PLkRZFc1dlgVrCU1pV+DDBxz9jwjORMj9L3m3uUxGy9F66CMjJvi4U3GFbFIp5SSso6TYg= ;
I'm playing with frame parts and I cannot work out if I am trying to do something that can't be done or if I am being stupid.
How can I reliably change the properties of a frame part on one window only?
Simple case; in sawfish-client it is simple to get a window and get it's frame:
(setq a (select-window))
(setq b (window-frame a))
It is then simple to get to part of the frame - and change the values:
(nth 2 (nth 3 b))
-> shows (right-edge . 90)
(rplacd (nth 2 (nth 3 b)) 100)
-> shows (right-edge . 100)
Now is where it starts to go wrong. Despite repeated calls to
the change does not appear on screen - rather the change happens suddenly when the window is redrawn, for instance on a resize. Also, when I create a new window (or resize another window) I find that the change has happened to that frame part on all windows.
Am I trying to do something that cannot be done - or am I going about this stupidly?
Many thanks, Richard.