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 19:23:57 +0100 Message-ID: <56817E3D.9080008@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> <56810A01.3060609@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451327123 20014 80.91.229.3 (28 Dec 2015 18:25:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:25:23 +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 19:25:12 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 1aDcTm-0004Ww-9f for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:25:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45762 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDcTl-0006bQ-J4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:25:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56772) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDcTh-0006bC-U9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:25:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDcTe-0001yL-OR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:25:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:39063) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDcTe-0001y6-L3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:25:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDcTe-0006zf-IA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:25:02 -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 18:25:02 +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=B10873.145132705326813 (code B ref 10873); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10873) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Dec 2015 18:24:13 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46664 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDcSq-0006yP-Vv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:24:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:57932) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDcSo-0006xx-Io for 10873@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:24:10 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.68.107]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LbgyV-1Zpn2p2Wwl-00lDk9; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:24:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:BtIG61LBjNWeMAvdNT+KwKnuNtE1cJiGPbbzwpvfmkBhGsylUJV UBEpv4t8H87Tnk+fUIuF/QdACo9rU46EqH+NCqKkDQHbVo0j6IAWCek+3FrcSzRHp+6mtsI mUFMT0Z3JRBp+XWATRAOEs9cQM4/mZnxZPBvRjIix0xQJjtZaYOB+J7swMvA7OHrQ4GoAGf o6xxunkl4w6FUU1XNXFdA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:/sMhNPj+UUk=:/8LfPJ64/bAtQlzIfaOgn1 J8rBubKHC+/YADix71KuSu7u2HjNruigyeg8XkKjVbUUYEo201A8I8hYEC1P4BQG3akFDm92v bJw/2B2JsDW8W7Yv+cT+G3odrDe4NNhyfH5xn11TX49Mg/mdK+TSCD7cWj64pJMQMEv0lwucX z2Gyy0T6NoDRNdYoNg5bgywV7NRfUJsbfUZZnLoNuHce4fhKoFISkPmodKlgnEDYPq+r6EpBX 1VRs7i4B0WUcP8sp58Zj0vK+5CBD6dXuelHMUNMGgHlnzbUxoqROlaZRNxG6/h6s9x7CZNHbo lYwLY8p/6meweDSAEMnzybjL1P4vPtuewHbHxaoXF1i55C7K07vL9l1zcyBIuiMqDkEd//YhB HeK7R41mFr6281tq/CIE4lbxfDL778A5BGSHG+0ilZQmJhmtv6tABhzvBnWX/cKzDv2+EWUA1 S6ijNR6RshI4tG4Q+tCXFlrT7d0A7SKuxYuwyukyYxdJM1bNjXwuetamxbuzn3F5IwcuKRHJ7 cl5ij7bSa9uegGPIIFdw4WqCmjYCgfvDqPQFx+CoGC2ltF/LkeTTXS8KbFG9DEE8pvs+6xSVC cw70hC/Jh0wTRJjp0zsrLK3jjUZFOxAeiUXcOt3rjvYNgNupAmSq1MD2v1TjXV8ZRvVHxC2ub OU+y977zlDZ3IPbLJn87gX/FbGLT5BFo9gfhrZYOIRev9G0me1ZLPJiaPALXGs4UcdvN8EZ+K yu+v7NtcEP3HQkGdM6ZqnuF3wYp5yNOMyYALaJe5PoHIC1S10Z+taMQEOG10sOVaOelph2qQ 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:110905 Archived-At: > And? Did you mean, by (a), only that the window is not removed > automatically? Or did you mean that a user cannot remove it? I meant that when the window gets removed or reused there's no guarantee that processing the completions will succeed. > If the former (which is what I hope you meant), it's up to > Emacs not to violate (a) (i.e., not to remove it automatically > until (b)). Or not to reuse it for showing another buffer. That's what the dedicated flag seems to be for. > And I think it must be the former, because I don't see that Emacs > prevents the user from removing the window. And if the user > removes the window then presumbably it is no longer needed. That's the idea, I think. > Or maybe you mean that the user removes it accidentally? > Even then, I don't see the problem. If there were a real > problem with removing the window then Emacs should not > let the user remove it. I said that Emacs is nice. It lets the user remove or reuse the window and thus terminate the completions dialogue. > And I don't even understand what it means (for Emacs or for > the user) to violate (b). That this completions dialogue cannot be continued reliably. > This is all a bit too vague and hypothetical for me, I'm > afraid. I don't have the impression I'm being much help > now, as I can't really follow your point. I don't remember ever having contributed anything to the completions code or to =E2=80=98report-emacs-bug=E2=80=99 so I cannot be more concret= e. I meanwhile pushed the change proposed earlier. If you don't like the new behavior you will have to come up with a suitable solution. Eli said that we must solve this bug. martin