From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-x o is moving between frames. [Was: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers!] Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 15:44:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20201024154455.GB5972@ACM> References: <83y2k8y6qs.fsf@gnu.org> <20201014194904.GD7651@ACM> <83sgafy56d.fsf@gnu.org> <20201015180143.GA10229@ACM> <83wnzrwdy5.fsf@gnu.org> <20201021151945.GA19276@ACM> <20201021200438.GF19276@ACM> <83h7qmkzla.fsf@gnu.org> <20201023204257.GB5249@ACM> <837drghyo0.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16533"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 24 17:45:54 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1kWLjt-0004D7-Lg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:45:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38394 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWLjs-0000sS-Hr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 11:45:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48230) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWLj4-0000Jv-5L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 11:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:15731 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWLj0-0004HK-Kn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 11:45:01 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 52272 invoked by uid 3782); 24 Oct 2020 15:44:56 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2e5d523b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.82.59]) by localhost.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:44:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 6318 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Oct 2020 15:44:55 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <837drghyo0.fsf@gnu.org> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/24 11:44:56 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = FreeBSD 9.x or newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:258425 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 10:26:55 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:42:57 +0000 > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > They almost take care of themselves. Almost, but not quite. I've had a > > closer look at minibuffer-only frames, and it feels like I'm opening > > Pandora's box[*]. Even in the unchanged master branch, I get this: > Of course, you've opened a Pandora box! what else did you expect doing > changes in this area? Fair enough! All I can say at the moment is that my patch, although seemingly working with "ordinary" frames, was incomplete with respect to minibuffer-less frames. It's going to take me longer to make it complete, possibly a lot longer. :-( > The documentation of next-window, which is the function that selects > the "other" window, says: > ALL-FRAMES nil or omitted means consider all windows on WINDOW’s frame, > plus the minibuffer window if specified by the MINIBUF argument. If the > minibuffer counts, consider all windows on all frames that share that > minibuffer too. > So this is very old and intended behavior. If you want to change that > as well, you will need more changes. No, I don't want to change that. I'm just trying to understand how it works. At the moment, when I create a setup with three frames, exactly one of which is a "normal" frame with minibuffer, my C-x o can be made wrongly to cycle between all three frames. It is bugs like this I must fix, and my feeling at the moment is that there will be more than just that one. :-( So, please disregard my optimistic patch, and I'll carry on working on the MB-less frame cases. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).