From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: About the 'minibuffer' frame parameter Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 20:19:47 +0200 Message-ID: <57A4D8C3.5030205@gmx.at> References: <579E3F9E.8020200@gmx.at> <83h9azl4s1.fsf@gnu.org> <57A4C0DE.3060506@gmx.at> <9605148d-fa81-4cbc-ae81-9e1e8bd11362@default> <57A4CE4C.5010901@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1470421265 20177 195.159.176.226 (5 Aug 2016 18:21:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 18:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 05 20:20:54 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bVjjl-0003EU-JU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 20:20:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46554 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bVjji-0002jp-BM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:20:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bVjj3-0002jY-2w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:20:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bVjj1-00049D-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:20:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:56124) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bVjit-00047H-OX; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:19:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([212.95.7.19]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MAyZg-1bLsMk1HG8-00A0Ay; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 20:19:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:BL8dO/FaOWGgGudFVH31R2poFYIpy74TSrfDzVwLvhA0sCu/x1Z wCUt+k7IPNQKkixa8HK4VlnTLQlN/dryNOMPJypJNW64m+Cw50tDwO8xRLIvbTdhSMtA7Fa UMMxcUkFdKdDsQkAFrNyIOswM2iA/TR8ZQnD/X5APIlh6DITFQCAooU2xLXzln5dyz1WZFm FgB8UIEiN0ZHqx/BASLcg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:fhTSvKmQqRA=:wEb67xQDNKh4RL44VHBswy 8LGrO1F8jQb/ZewtzNr6CyukFMAswKncR+cUwRXcH3kbZwRPUuaYBvJAW5+JVn29+Rf+NGFpG J/pt6l5tu4TRjyfkpuv+WiEPGbeRi2tIVWfkDsGl5nvGpWpNGhrQYW16qHbS666TPE4qNYYtT mPvZA6S7REwvGvmnVq3CFy81D2MRm1qpKbH6oKxmbwqJBYt5yY1ebsFxDslo6iV4UzeKq2SJV 3sC9BlgKPFhuUB8+oeXIlHrbwr7kXLO1uPs06iHMo4vCs9mRpkRCvXcja5AHVr0PDV/ra5Rl6 cGbEcbouWdUV5QVZa7jqSwh6thqXvO9Ln8yDq17D4+tJN151qCbeVU5vxYZm9WWQ2+5vFhWd8 8ep9n0IfsjhgWTlCBvjHCHZfpaKu9i8XU23pSKgfP/9/X4IRQb+dqoBzZWJ6ZNNoefnslK45q 2g4BBT+i13suX2g9VeFbdkVYdiHASTI5iz5PSQqbxZ/RcLncwbzj5yHk1fTXJ6Jol/H3kxhEi ZCLOAIgVa8WIwi7lhsKKjt8cp7JOYIHNa/9gYNJ7b27Cs2NNqj9HvbHWeqvCN/6IYzFpeeCso /+FpwtrF1G9MQ/mdBasf8voOn5M22nguBmwDl/EgGGSq498rIQH3gFza7kOsZJG7zmFE8aCDb +HSyi3Sh0otLZrV7dgbLiur5cgkpsM9LZ3T74Swuxb/RLJBNGpT6sCG6fObKulwYOdOz4yAMu p7wQqf8taiXI38apgSxrrnJrZBDTMdRmmlK8V0sYJbbRvMAJJjMbHrFB4M4hVNUTrt4HCMLg X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.15 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206431 Archived-At: > Dunno what you mean by "care about it". Care about the issue(s) that started this thread. > Just what are you proposing > to change, so as to no longer "care about it"? Nothing. As long as nobody cares about these issues. > I have code that does things to frames, and checks whether a given > frame is a standalone minibuffer frame. My code typically checks > whether it is just MY standalone minibuffer frame, by checking variable > `1on1-minibuffer-frame'. But more generally such code would check > the `minibuffer' frame parameter. I don't see why we would eliminate > that possibility. I don't want to eliminate anything. > And I believe that Juanma's frameset code carefully distinguishes > standalone minibuffer frames from others, by checking that parameter. > > I think that Emacs users should continue to be able to test, as well > as set the `minibuffer' frame parameter. Why shouldn't they? Because IIUC they do not care much about "testing" it. Otherwise they would have complained already. martin