Re: About the 'minibuffer' frame parameter

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > Another alternative would be to return a window in both cases.

But then we can't discriminate minibuffer-less from normal frames by
looking at the parameter value only.

 > We have already a few cases where frame-parameter returns a value
 > different from the one specified when make-frame was called.  There's
 > nothing wrong about that, if it's Emacs that chooses the actual value.

This goes both ways.  With (2) Emacs would choose nil when
‘set-frame-position’ explicitly asks for a window.  And with no
'minibuffer' specified we'd have to return t or a window in any case.

 > Do you still prefer (2)?  I prefer storing a window because then we
 > could naturally return it, like we do with frame colors.

C code never consults the frame parameter.  Elisp code currently
consults the parameter in four places only, three of them to find out
whether the frame is minibuffer-only.  If Elisp code wants the window,
it uses ‘minibuffer-window’ which handles all types of frames.  And with
(2) the values t, nil and 'only' would immediately tell the type of any
frame.

martin