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: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers! Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:36:13 +0000 Message-ID: <20201123133613.GA4635@ACM> References: <20201120210005.GA1034@ACM> <20201121102751.GA11643@ACM> <18a901b8-3250-b461-eb2a-c13988616e93@gmx.at> <20201121124550.GB11643@ACM> <535bd6d4-3997-2e64-ea43-5de6f0892062@gmx.at> <20201122105947.GA5912@ACM> <59f8d2fa-3db9-078b-56e2-c793f6e69edd@gmx.at> <20201122183826.GG5912@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9341"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: enometh@meer.net, Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , Andrii Kolomoiets , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 23 14:41:11 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 1khC5f-0002Jx-J7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:41:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44590 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1khC5e-0003vZ-I0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:41:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55654) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1khC13-00014W-9i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:36:25 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:26168 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1khC0x-0002He-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:36:24 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 39257 invoked by uid 3782); 23 Nov 2020 13:36:13 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15c1f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.31]) by localhost.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:36:13 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 4641 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Nov 2020 13:36:13 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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-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=ham 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:259679 Archived-At: Hello, Martin. On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:10:36 +0100, martin rudalics wrote: > > On my machine (XFCE on X-Windows on GNU) I see TRT when I do this. Could > > it be something to do with your window manager? > Here it's xfce 4.12 with xfwm4 so probably something very similar to > yours. But since the behavior does not depend on your patches as I just > verified, something else must be causing it. OK. > >> Here the minibuffer-only frame is selected but partially hidden by the > >> normal frame so that I don't see no cursor initially. I don't know why > >> people like it that way. A minibuffer child frame is explicitly not > >> selected. > > Do people like it, or is it just not a big enough annoyance for anybody > > to complain? If I were a minibuffer-only frame user, I suspect it would > > drive me up the wall. > I suppose we only have two such users - Stefan and Drew - and they seem > to like it (or work around it). Maybe one or other of them might answer this point. > >> 'other-frame' never selects a minibuffer-only frame. It probably should. > > I'm more of the view that a minibuffer-only frame should never be > > selected other than by activating a minibuffer. > Then what did you mean with the last line of > >> On M-: followed by C-x 5 o (moving to the normal frame), > >> the unfinished command in the minibuffer frame cannot now be cancelled, > >> and C-x 5 o doesn't move back into the minibuffer. It was a complaint about not being able to cancel the unfinished command in the minibuffer. One should be able to cancel such a command. Eventually it occurred to me that I could click on the minibuffer frame with the mouse, which I did, and then C-g worked. If you have nothing against it, I'll commit the fix from yesterday (the one supplying a Qnil to the future set-window-configuration) to master. > martin -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).