From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mead Subject: Re: Vertical split in Emacs 23 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:22:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87skgxf5wz.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87tz1dsulc.fsf@gmail.com> <87vdltom3d.fsf@in-ulm.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRLJG-0002h3-37 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:23:18 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRLJB-0002eL-Kz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:23:17 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54596 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRLJB-0002eE-Cy for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:23:13 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:26638) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRLJA-0001RB-Ok for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:23:13 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRLJ6-0003qV-M1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:23:08 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MRLJ5-0000JK-HU for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:23:07 +0000 Received: from cpc3-rdng14-0-0-cust786.winn.cable.ntl.com ([82.0.211.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:23:07 +0000 Received: from paul.d.mead by cpc3-rdng14-0-0-cust786.winn.cable.ntl.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:23:07 +0000 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Benjamin Andresen writes: > Hey Paul, > > I don't know if this will exactly revert it back to the previous > behavior, but if you change `split-width-threshold' to a bigger number > (e.g. 999) than the default it should be more sensible looking. > > br, > benny Thanks Benny, that'll get me going for now. Having thought about this a bit more, I can see where the new behaviour might be useful, but it just looks a bit ugly in org-mode because (I guess) it's not been written to deal with narrower buffers. Would this be a minor fix or a major change do you think? My elisp is about as competent as my sanskrit I'm afraid... Paul