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: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:54:50 +0000 Message-ID: <20201125215450.GC8228@ACM> References: <20201123160703.GB4635@ACM> <53833023-d959-07af-7611-aa2e0bdcc1bc@gmx.at> <0d14bfc4-8e8e-d3b9-e0e1-ee4bf2e6449d@gmx.at> <20201125210947.GB8228@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="22751"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Andrii Kolomoiets , emacs-devel@gnu.org, martin rudalics , enometh@meer.net, Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 25 22:55:43 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 1ki2lL-0005p7-0n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 22:55:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38474 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ki2lK-0006Yj-2M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 16:55:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ki2ka-00065O-Js for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 16:54:56 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:24066 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ki2kX-0008HB-LX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 16:54:56 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 93181 invoked by uid 3782); 25 Nov 2020 21:54:51 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15c9a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.154]) by localhost.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 22:54:50 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 14347 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Nov 2020 21:54:50 -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=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:259814 Archived-At: Hello, Gregory. On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 21:31:13 +0000, Gregory Heytings wrote: > > The behaviour in Emacs 27 is chaotic. Sometimes a minibuffer moves with > > a frame switch, sometimes it doesn't. > I wouldn't write it is "chaotic". The behavior you consider "chaotic" is > well-defined, and has been there since Emacs 21 at least: the minibuffer > moves from frame F1 to frame F2 if and only if the minibuffer is active on > frame F1 and a recursive minibuffer is entered on frame F2. I'm not sure what you mean by "is" in that sentence. > There are other possible behaviors of course, but IMO the current one > is a reasonable one. If a recursive minibuffer operation has been carried out, then the minibuffer moves, if it hasn't it doesn't. That means Emacs has some invisible internal state, something which doesn't seem desirable. > > Also, how often do people actually select minibuffer-only frames? Unless > > I'm missing something, it seems a rather strange thing to want to do. > There are at least two Emacs users on this list who use minibuffer-only > frames: Stefan and Drew. Sorry, I don't think I was clear. By "select .... frames" I meant the operation of making the minibuffer frame the current frame, not the chosing of an Emacs setup which includes minibuffer-only frames. Such a minibuffer-only frame comes into operation whenever a minibuffer action is invoked in another frame, but actually selecting it independently of such a minibuffer action? > I'm also curious why they do this, and would be interested if they > could explain what the benefit of doing this is. It's also not a setup I would want to use. By preference, I use the Linux tty and only ever have one frame on the screen at a time. But I can imagine people wanting their interactive minibuffer always to be in the same place on a GUI screen. Or something like that. Maybe Stefan or Drew will answer this. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).