From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#56305: 29.0.50; 'yes-or-no-p' deselects minibuffer frame Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 10:36:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83h73w8f7i.fsf@gnu.org> <83zghn7ckd.fsf@gnu.org> <83zghm5evt.fsf@gnu.org> <5d86d890-9a2e-e4d6-13fb-da03285ea003@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31721"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 56305@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 09 10:37:32 2022 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 1oA5y0-00089L-Bn for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 10:37:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50812 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA5xy-0007tO-Vh for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 04:37:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46662) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA5xf-0007t6-EI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 04:37:13 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39823) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA5xW-0001KN-D7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 04:37:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oA5xW-0006OT-9V for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 04:37:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 08:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 56305 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 56305-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B56305.165735579524533 (code B ref 56305); Sat, 09 Jul 2022 08:37:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 56305) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2022 08:36:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33719 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oA5x4-0006Nd-PO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 04:36:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:39353) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oA5x2-0006NO-LO for 56305@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 04:36:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1657355782; bh=LygP8ir0P2pQHE8MwrUbA8g36kfH3nP0OuXN+dE+4+o=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=MSW7wSGPg+1YPE157WkfCO507+6iTBMhb55NCX+vn9TJveKnL61C6NGpW++YKvYmJ BsprMuJxuzLVD+rFQTuUskXQZ/TbBIx1uhPzHo/QqXjNPzNayWnkaER8WsrTDbOrqR JQJs+QD0o5EW5U7n3WX3wyTS1CvVr8RY3IBYT39s= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([212.95.5.83]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1My36N-1nN36X0K2J-00zY3E; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 10:36:22 +0200 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:5s+do8mWDBj+lOygvt7E/r6nVsBUlGACQRjKiih7n9kXJIghqty s9bBruhpizc2mdf8yIQ7609l/+XmXeS2xp3nqGnvIOWVKEpYmzrYdObR/cuf/svFe3fl9zn aUiNu6o6cFSRrzlLOYVjafF8qGbgJm1+kTd8oNUb/fhxA/AIVMBZRqswTtwR4ha2C7RL4MQ hUXzUfIslvLp4G++FNosQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:dFQ9GKVCz6w=:mWY91RpLNkb8KH1e44Y7In i0Pi2A3z4pe+JLSMd4WCoG6QorOTN5BltaMGY4sJ4YbCLZOPBhH0FrbG7xEDz1oCiUA4ZHMSH a/1Gcsz+4DaPsGNVeY1Ga8yk/pBhJFooDgO7ay3/gcg7YVylt1yxGfIoEv0rnAo333Rx99xsv z42cvNpAn8NJ9EsOYq4BLZLq5gTLBkwsTf1eK4FXmqZWIQnYtW+exFitAyOAKTjg0DNwDgyAb CVhUhyZa3H4cldqBDoFUNil6q15G9TlSr50YgAz4XyluHrfweDmyI/732Vmy4NxuM2h9MgmLb 7ZPKv5TxVwhVKZzx7+BpVY9kbxf402blo4Ni51QBpW4EmIAX0IwlnD3q6Ny15alK6qkPgeYIU 05U5RkPt+Rv/gGiKaLQlerU+FYKLz5dkfqRZ3EgYT4KPJoHi86sjoR8m7x1Y0FRFIz4a8kV1a H+S0Uykg1qsNneGU1MIbiGl8FKqqrTVGRXU9Zm6oDf2Dg3vuJPCJ8bE3iSdQm3sJEwqiiI/97 ZvY7bjdrgcN0SJjLuzwj1GuIp8Iwd8a7ne2+lOuNvlaNz0ubN95FttMIx1Dr2LKKkXX0/tVRv 6G0ro9ULGNi/INfWICzUalNM88e3FbJrCSzPfkff3gKHOrM2Xq6eZok2r03cKLU/+GPckRfu9 73lYN2p8qoV0T5bn0TOucBQyqRmwBzCGnfm+BFhU5kKC/s3+iHUY6BkhgnnFzSoTKDG2pw8ez Uj/VZDE1BdPfYj/s0N869QUvaSxvAsItKVUPJtLeqdHILY/CQD+kd2dfkrsU0iUcZloI6MBu 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:236483 Archived-At: >>> It does not restore the Emacs 26 behavior. > > How, precisely, does the behaviour in my proposed patch differ from that > of Emacs 26? In all patches you proposed for the release version the difference is that with Emacs 26 the normal frame is on top of the minibuffer frame when the question is asked while with your patches the minibuffer frame obscures the normal frame. The minibuffer frame has input focus in either case. >>> If you look at the reports for Bug#8856, Bug#11566 or Bug#11939, you >>> might be able to imagine how much time I spent to get the behavior >>> right for Drew's setup back then. It's quite sobering to see my >>> efforts from that period get wasted now. > > What do you mean by "wasted"? What fails to work now which worked > immediately after your fixes for these three bugs? I neither recall what did not work nor whether I fixed anything at all nor what got fixed. I only recall that everything I tried in this area was extremely fragile and bound to fail immediately when a sequence of events was disturbed by external intervention. >> .... I'll take a look at these bug reports this evening. > > I've had a look at those bugs, now, albeit briefly. They do not contain > concise recipes for reproducing the bugs, and anyway, I don't have a > Windows system to try things out on. They are bugs where the focus > ended up on the wrong frame, and it was hypothesised that this may have > been because of Windows always giving the focus to newly created frames. Such behavior is quite normal on non-Windows systems too. martin