From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [RFC] Shrink columns dynamically Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 09:54:30 +0200 Message-ID: <874lujv26h.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87bmoswkvs.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d198uznu.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <87o9ss4aj4.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87inj0m5v5.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <878tjwuhxe.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87o9sr5vzl.fsf@mat.ucm.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52527) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUq0C-0000h2-JF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 03:54:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUq0B-0000gK-N9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 03:54:36 -0400 Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::194]:40235) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUq0B-0000fs-HJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 03:54:35 -0400 Received: from saiph.selenimh (000043010000000000000469.ipv6.commingeshautdebit.fr [IPv6:2a03:a0a0:0:4301::469]) (Authenticated sender: mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D55EC5A83 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 09:54:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ngz by saiph.selenimh with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1dUq06-0006yr-Jm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 09:54:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87o9sr5vzl.fsf@mat.ucm.es> (Uwe Brauer's message of "Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:27:26 +0000") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Uwe Brauer writes: > If you want to implement the second feature differently, because of > maintain reasons that sound reasonable, but please don't simple remove > the second feature. Then I'll just drop this branch. I'm against having the same (sub-set of a) feature implemented in two different ways. I still think width cookies in their current state are wrong since they really do two different things. Thank you for the feedback. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou