From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Attempt to modify read-only object" error with set-frame-configuration Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:23:25 +0100 Message-ID: <4770CC0D.6050903@gmx.at> References: <47698DF5.2080106@gmx.at> <47702D13.8050806@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1198574903 20420 80.91.229.12 (25 Dec 2007 09:28:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 25 10:28:36 2007 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 1J765Q-0004VK-DI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:28:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7655-000684-1B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:28:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J764z-00065R-82 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:28:05 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J764x-00061o-5O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:28:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J764w-00061Z-SN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:28:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J764w-0002Fq-Bw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:28:02 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Dec 2007 09:27:57 -0000 Original-Received: from N743P009.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.36.201]) [62.47.36.201] by mail.gmx.net (mp008) with SMTP; 25 Dec 2007 10:27:57 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+Pd0svYHmPp81g2w0i9e4foEQ04NLbiyqQScC3mH i8I6DyeaGQk2rs User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:85440 Archived-At: > Thanks. However, I'm not sure this is right: why do we need to make > an explicit (visibility . t) element on w32, whereas on X we do not? By all means I never claimed that the patch would DTRT ;-). Anyway, before applying the patch I was able to create a new frame that behaved correctly by calling (x-create-frame-with-faces '((visibility . t))) while that frame did _not_ behave correctly when I simply called (x-create-frame-with-faces) The problem doesn't seem to be with `x-create-frame-with-faces' not calling `modify-frame-parameters' because with (if (null visibility-spec) (modify-frame-parameters frame '((visibility . t))) (modify-frame-parameters frame (list visibility-spec))) the initial frame gets killed immediately. Hence the bug occurs before, probably somewhere in `x_make_frame_visible' called by `x-create-frame', but I simply fail to understand that code yet. > I think it would be useful to compare the values of the frame > parameters in Emacs 22 with what I have shown for the CVS code, and > find why it works in Emacs 22, but not in CVS. Maybe then we will > understand what went wrong after the multi-tty merge. Maybe the multi-tty merge just revealed an existing problem in the Windows port. BTW it should be _much_ simpler to analyze the `horizontal-scroll-bars' problem first.