From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#69738: [BUG] rmail-mail-new-frame doesn't delete the new frame after composing the message on Emacs 29.2 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:54:47 +0200 Message-ID: <86plvztv14.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4a0215b2e7bb416cf352e867183f745a@posteo.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16219"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 69738@debbugs.gnu.org To: rameiko87@posteo.net Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 12 14:55:45 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2bZ-0003zn-5i for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:55:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2bL-00056V-U4; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:55:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2bI-000516-Qp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:55:28 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2bI-0005uk-3s for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:55:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2bq-0006vK-Ik for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:56:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:56:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69738 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 69738-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B69738.171025174426346 (code B ref 69738); Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:56:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 69738) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Mar 2024 13:55:44 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42736 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2bQ-0006lz-Td for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:55:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52586) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2bO-0006jJ-0Y for 69738@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:55:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rk2ai-0005qs-3K; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:54:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=8k8s/EGF+Qj2/Q7b7tWOjSmD+vSmUisgXqtQS047sa8=; b=LR1k2rShztSD O9+uw0/Y1zATDtJKlMq9xZnIgKd8hggJpV95FruQoRAknrt/9bYMPCjQl5OuP77FLcAa64lhNB50r diGDBnjpK6mJBtL7nFcn1ZLgCKwJSApUNXjI1WtnXSgtzXDwUYBETgB8DQxlIu44eKkRf02BTq75V SsdCLvnMlJwcgmi1L7qmiS2+HZjVYIEi4n3+p6kDA15kUQJnUm31T13tFdlfpk+ZQpit3DtdPQLGt pWWQfM03Cch9wgvF7w14FVYJMevGdqH3OWk98UNoi07zXNJYbAmnqHtucinx01MOJxucRMuaD9zZS OadY3RH1QidIi6c+42LsKA==; In-Reply-To: <4a0215b2e7bb416cf352e867183f745a@posteo.net> (rameiko87@posteo.net) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:281515 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:49:54 +0000 > From: rameiko87@posteo.net > > For brevity I don't include the steps for C-c nor for C-s but only for > C-d and C-k; but I can assure you that the case of C-c would yield the > same result; I wonder what the desired result would be for C-s instead. > > Steps to reproduce: > > emacs -Q -nw > M-: (setq rmail-mail-new-frame t) > M-x rmail > m > C-c C-d > > alternatively, use C-c C-k on the last line. > > Expected result: > The frame is deleted (as the manual specifies at the end of 34.10). > > Actual result: > The frame is not deleted. It's a documentation bug: that frame is deleted only if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that there are visible frames on display besides the frame where the message was composed. In the -nw session, that condition is not met. See rmail-mail-return for more details about what is actually being done in each case. IOW: this is a feature, and (IMO) a reasonable one at that, it just needs a better documentation.