Re: Terminology in multi-tty primitives

[Chetan Pandya <pandyacus@sbcglobal.net>]

--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > However, are we really that sure users won't want to have an ability
> > to create frames on other tty's?  By the same token, why do we have
> > make-frame-on-display? the same reason(s) would be arguments to retain
> > make-frame-on-tty.
> 
> Not really: 99.99% of the time, ttys are controlled by a shell, or some
> other program, so if we use M-x make-frame-on-tty RET we get into
> a situation where 2 programs use this tty at the same time, without any
> synchronization between them.  I've used it for debug
> purposes (to circumvent the server.el and emacsclient code), but it
> tends to give you various forms of display corruption, so it's not really
> appropriate for a user command.
> 
> >> - still, when make-frame is called with an explicit `tty' argument but
> >> without an explicit `window-system' argument, the right thing to do is
> >> to give precedence to the `tty' and choose an appropriate window-system for it.
> 
> > If we don't need this, why introduce it?
> 
> It's not crucial indeed.
> 
> 
>         Stefan

On my system I cannot create a tty frame, but isn't there supposed to be the ability to create multiple frames on a terminal?

Would it make sense to fix the problems, if there are any, or just remove the ability to do that, if not?

Chetan