From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10873: 24.0.93; `report-emacs-bug' obscures bug-reporting buffer (!) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:08:01 +0100 Message-ID: <56810A01.3060609@gmx.at> References: <1716A09ADF16453DAA29A726CB402BA5@us.oracle.com> <87sirsc1lg.fsf@building.gnus.org> <281e9d1f-0853-4498-bd4f-7510213c0cab@default> <43f2b0b2-fafc-43a9-b56a-120b90878cbc@default> <838u4hk0um.fsf@gnu.org> <56800C2E.80300@gmx.at> <0286fb63-edbc-448f-ae07-738ed5ef8f78@default> <56801A8C.2080605@gmx.at> <85c8c268-b3dc-42ff-8bc5-bb1e5786ecb2@default> <56802FEA.9080103@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451297373 10490 80.91.229.3 (28 Dec 2015 10:09:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:09:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10873@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org To: Drew Adams , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 28 11:09:24 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUjz-0001Zx-95 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:09:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44065 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUjt-0003Ij-Au for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42105) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUjj-0003Ay-Ou for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUje-0003JZ-Nt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:37725) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUje-0003JV-JZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUje-00006i-DC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10873 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10873-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10873.1451297298343 (code B ref 10873); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:09:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10873) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Dec 2015 10:08:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45324 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUiw-00005T-Dd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:08:18 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:50251) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUiu-00005C-T4 for 10873@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:08:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.68.110]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MZ8fw-1aYSS22Hnw-00KzuP; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:08:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:GJ2uBwbueBCjILicQsw1+V1F4ZlRAk8t3+m4sE1cy/MW1EgDRYG KnLqls9Q+/Ih430WQ4fdXX6JoId56jnWM9XVLYUsdMFLL02k/VVAWMnDHzSZNczxlrmBZyt IdU3yeX+DEjqoAVxxx+6UnoWJffAlHsXETlVIfkE6sUUD3H+hZDIoMIZmBCNF8y2SohZmcs sP83CLTFnISh40EQKAYFA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:HXdzcd2cqU0=:LAlL1CNowt4UaC/c0SdlCS u/sMivKwRnY47FTmwPR40jAaljqGIIsKqSXievSWXVPpakiWWTKP2X4fJjEJB9iUNCRX/IM+r jW3ou002Op0+nvBLKg2GWGwTnvYbuQPWpAL5cdTQViKYLSuWoY4FlU/scAuAykSacTk6blr2m u0p1S7mm2ETaJ53A155/y4FASzabfu0TxXvF7+qWVKuu7bO7aeCONXkB28AO68rcpc+tFmMEi NcyGN2ZoFA1i1BEsKDmSbvrGFavow2woi9TqwZ9a/l5PAFaVQeGbxxD1YS5uTYUUNKXpqzEs5 gG5JnqNeND9XoYntps+H9072qe3ySwnJb/YjVl/lBGS1J1o5pFfv2JuKa3FcSkw6P2g3zT5f5 LtyuRpKlgbpYsE5mqZMDbXLenywSsiJy+SlNfoXhCEHeImHoWc7cIJzFy0jd7XjdxysJCyoEc c8VhrOoJldT8Jk3znciYUJeLk2o9H2W5fzzB7NUIPbvFKPEc/kNvwgxEGgc/dyQyrq/V3qiNm YwdWVCbHhEJpFfkgJpsJT9Z9w5QU3E7F4nTR9BDRzUMcRW3rUrV9vHUDO+SCUpIawGGjzJ/I1 jOAAchh9wIowDO+g5cduZh4VbnZjIfOAkBMVxN4hPRwo/g6RZQVaG8QX9NJfM0nj0yDYt6gVS IPawbwDu/7rj6+yWHPypFuj3n3yck/YWqp9lI/jnqQjKk7GLcP6MA63LpYtY1CfQYcG8R7SuN tWUUCLFH3IHEvQIvoleWGOTkwMIET1bHtx1JAUpNY7VJ2B4m98F1GFFF1INh/FY9Mdb8jOX5 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:110889 Archived-At: >> I consider the window showing *Completions* modal. > > That's clear. But what is your reason (evidence) for saying > that. That if you don't consider the window modal you will run into all sorts of problems like the one that is the subject of this thread. I'll give you a more realistic scenario. Assume that you have a directory ~/foo/ with two files say foo1 and foo2 and a directory ~/bar/ with two files say bar1 and bar2. Now do emacs -Q M-x customize-option RET abbrev-file-name RET Put ~/foo/ into the editable field, point at its end and do M-x widget-complete RET Now do C-x 5 2 M-x customize-option RET custom-file RET Select "File", put ~/bar/ into the editable field, point at its end and do M-x widget-complete RET again. Note that at this moment you have changed the contents of the *Completions* windows in _both_ frames. If you now return to the first frame and select a completion like bar1, nothing will happen (in the best case). This is the same cockpit error as the one from your scenario: *Completions* windows are modal and should be treated accordingly, that is, nicely. > Ah, so that's what you mean by "modal window". Not that a user > is prevented from doing something else than interact with it, A user is allowed to do something else as long as she behaves nicely. That's the price she has to pay for not being "prevented from doing something else than interact with it". The user in the scenario above does not behave nicely and neither do you when you want to report a bug while the *Completions* windows is shown. Such users are punished. > but that (a) it remains visible until (b) it is no longer needed, > when it disappears. > > That is not the usual meaning of "modal", but OK, good to know. > > I imagine that (a) is unnecessary, unless you are suggesting > that a user cannot remove such a window. I'm guessing that > you perhaps mean, by (a), that no other automatically displayed > window takes its place, and that it is not otherwise removed > automatically. All assumptions are off when you violate (a) or (b). martin