From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#51883: 29.0.50; Command to get accidentally deleted frames back Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:01:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87czn1gfb1.fsf@web.de> <838rxo0zk7.fsf@gnu.org> <86lez73auf.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <86y236vlfm.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Reply-To: Stefan Monnier Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21367"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de, Eli Zaretskii , Gregory Heytings , 51883@debbugs.gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 23 17:03:21 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 1nBfKp-0005GB-47 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 17:03:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59534 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nBfKn-0000UE-AR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:03:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44934) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nBfJb-0000RK-L0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:02:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47988) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nBfJb-0007XF-5W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:02:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBfJb-0006ZQ-3f for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:02:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:02:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 51883 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 51883-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B51883.164295368123240 (code B ref 51883); Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:02:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 51883) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jan 2022 16:01:21 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40890 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBfIu-00062S-DI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:01:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:9504) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBfIs-0005v8-6X for 51883@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:01:18 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 38221100189; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:01:12 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A47E0100163; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:01:10 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1642953670; bh=bV0ViZOtZX4b3DBBMtDkdP1QlkqdGMlX5ymHVzZA4nc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mIXDTw+V4tzeLwNMhqSkR3XCjK/GXxq5kavz2tKIGVmg7OGxoDR8dlNXh5+6bBwGL vd8k0u7JBwtqc1rKOFrjFNgThQTOY+mvNujN5vg9tSrnpfRbokVCU47d5gdmveJuHY bBSX+NHqjdGsD9LeonA5shltjdtpN7tsp/oDAUVKZebgms49lFSNgvNm/kka7t8i5Z fmccOhjXFF+wco/e+Ml+U8INJELaerxjvusm3Aqn+rl1D+l8BH4wYfelNuRDsuTUfz F1cdwNegixXmFXXK2IRbyKqdTZKc+kpeOEspMC7HYeaToUAWoCvWZBH6SqJ12gLgg/ dssgj/41cl0iw== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.30.173]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E4F6120622; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:01:10 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <86y236vlfm.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (Juri Linkov's message of "Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:11:17 +0200") 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:224931 Archived-At: >>>> IIUC framesets are designed to be serializable so they shouldn't hold on >>>> to external data like buffers and windows, so such 16 elements should >>>> cost very little in terms of heap use. >>> OTOH, since framesets are designed to be serializable, isn't it >>> overkill to use framesets in the same session? >> Not sure what you mean by "overkill". AFAIK it makes them more lightweight. > Without framesets it doesn't require loading frameset.el. The alternative to framesets, AFAIK is to keep actual frames around, which are more expansive than framesets. Or what do you suggest we use instead? >>> For example, `clone-frame` doesn't use framesets, and the effect of >>> `clone-frame` should be the same as what `undelete-frame` does. >> Except it actually creates a frame, so it requires a lot more resources. > I don't understand: `clone-frame` creates a new frame with `make-frame`, > and `undelete-frame` creates a new frame with `make-frame-on-display`. I was confused. I still haven't understood you correctly, but at least now I'm aware of it. I'm talking about the cost of the representation of the frames we deleted until the moment we undelete them. I can't see how `clone-frame` helps in this respect. Stefan