From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chetan Pandya Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Terminology in multi-tty primitives Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:54:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <439922.58789.qm@web83205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <49602FF9.2000001@gnu.org> Reply-To: pandyacus@sbcglobal.net NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1231044907 1574 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2009 04:55:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:55:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , stephen@xemacs.org To: Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 04 05:56:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LJL26-0005cL-Iv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:56:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55059 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LJL0r-00040M-BY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:54:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJL0m-0003xq-EV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:54:52 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJL0k-0003tg-Iy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:54:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43106 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LJL0k-0003tU-Ev for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:54:50 -0500 Original-Received: from web83205.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([216.252.101.49]:39925) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LJL0j-0003ji-Oc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:54:50 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 59448 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jan 2009 04:54:48 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=LfF36aiWhrdokIFU20FDQI5WJdK1+MPerLIHabt1vx3rShYsKvVPg9GMeASOqeC0mzMnW9kY9WAl0SIx7u4k5qQAH2mW585IXuqKcM2FzeIymYs9ENyLSx5s9UAy7D2c2T83Ajy6xMDSv228HwilOhJuhT8jwQaVZVaXVfHaNAA=; X-YMail-OSG: pDhjdhYVM1l3hSg26ZXmymGCrfv2JAUHbIlIfDwUzaAKsNg5uwGYFgjkauku8hUvCELj7.mPQWXvfpLnu.t_f_hhorad84AqiO60Y0Rz.VUQahZgHbbOBqbT7IOXAkqN7hgAsc085GnYezFg4CSm8C8H_eJ_HdbmUw8lMo.CSTcO_fPIyFRPxeI6_bgrJsrJCoOgZ80uz0wX Original-Received: from [75.36.180.96] by web83205.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:54:48 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 In-Reply-To: <49602FF9.2000001@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 6.x (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:107568 Archived-At: --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Jason Rumney wrote: > That is distinct from creating a frame on a different tty. The issue > here is that creating a frame on a tty that Emacs does not already own > can lead to corruption, because the process that owns that tty keeps > drawing to it while Emacs is using it. > > Perhaps we should limit the ttys that Emacs will create frames on with > make-frame-on-tty to ttys that Emacs already owns (either through > emacsclient, or the tty that emacs -nw was started in). It is true that > we don't limit displays in the same way, but X displays are designed to > have multiple applications using them at a time, so we don't have the > same problem there. I don't see how the situation needs to be different for emacsclient. If emacsclient is waiting, so can the other process be. Isn't it the user's responsibility to make sure of that?