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: delete-other-frames Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:07:28 +0200 Message-ID: <57BD63D0.6000707@gmx.at> References: <57BC072F.9070704@gmx.at> <83k2f7fugv.fsf@gnu.org> 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 1472029698 15360 195.159.176.226 (24 Aug 2016 09:08:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:08:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Development To: Richard Copley , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 24 11:08:14 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 1bcUAQ-0003bM-3Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:08:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50281 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bcUAN-0003gP-H6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:08:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54293) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bcU9v-0003TV-Dy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:07:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bcU9t-0007nX-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:07:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:49838) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bcU9q-0007mI-Kr; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:07:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([212.95.7.52]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MMT1y-1bVMc319GY-008Ldi; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:07:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:o3qEGri60+fS0ly1bkvxv/TRB966kpouBhBYJUlSDP0cf7Sei3Y i31vBTMA85OpI5fKdz66rxTElKsW3+WmLY7sX3qa1EhXTe/M3HBCeBumZLBhca6aDURhc/+ cwwBlTUbegIYTdIEuGHOrF3yUIdk6EhNG07lMuntZdmrqUkYjfbn7K/E0W3YESM2LXCMm3c uULSbnQXl7hdq1XPqjnsQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:GTvJ0pD48qs=:PnTwAfHVVGEuVjbldkPIYB wLXygyKaOJmoqfpji+MwCdmnEY5g7h8+VA8qC/m7I7H9NDBd5Li3JZ3mlgkjcVuQFgoBzkyou rusjyvAx/sPMrN18D19nlu1YGzTUOX8I5zineXE2/G9VHRdnp8Sb+6XyoRrVfOiMKVrHRxzdd B6qYvOXCYAqjBAQIjRPIlcHUL3x+vOyeGPgGDCZEDFKI5xOj4PZl3xrXUMPWr6LhU5fo3OZmC RysAyLa7ouGjDDEkuvLrvybfNQ3sN7TYnXJcTjT55vQvcD5nJ+5Dcd3D8BT+HR4Mdk9+JQ7zW iSjiXFCd+0RFtrRbD3D870rb+7QQyZo5s3nX+B0F65RuBSScfml4Na9PNxU+npUb8JuwpajVW jTv8IMCMoqLyrWU4ZRhEQObnHcrvhPytkoMZTSIK/L3ECjeduxITrR09kk+mcLbtdjFrJBW81 a6RTY7YoYU7Q6Gf/PZY/RUqW9ZAaO4/4EQUOsjI6WvjMgQMjX0httKqHbKj8dE6SF4fYVDl+c t4q/WEOfoc1mezRzF8LH7yuCRv4kXqWSm1g/sPsrIQfg8lo6XPToTVVKkn7OpgnPLI1eoXvj+ TznFW6HRogIYH5z9VXlAIoIGnvYOz7hQCr0twAlhoPD0Ef2tJtcbDSRbQtC9gPdPk4IlqWriN fpc0a3nhgMIlPdXPCD8H3q1Nd9QJVbWg6FrZEay6n67+QcF3UBPxtRcmFeCnZW/F+BKqersaw q+3myKUE4UOswnyYXePi3VaRCFZfqf3FuWbplWwIKDguhX9/h7blYdANrjZg0/n1jKn+PmsW 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:206778 Archived-At: > Possibly related: from emacs -Q, > > C-x b * RET ;; create and switch to buffer "*" > M-x ediff-buffers RET RET RET ;; ediff buffers "*" and "*scratch*" > ;; Now attempt to close the main Emacs frame using the window manager > > This gives: > > Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "Attempt to delete a surrogate > minibuffer frame") [...] > I've never been sure whether this deserves a bug report, or what > should be the expected behaviour. FWIW when this happens my intention > is usually to kill Emacs. In any case the error message isn't very > user friendly. The ediff Control Panel frame is an oddity. OT1H, for navigation, it detracts user input from the main frame and OTOH uses the main frame's minibuffer window for echoing. IMHO the Control Panel should appear on the main frame by default. But I'm afraid that many users already got used to the current behavior. In any case this and similar scenarios show that "surrogate minibuffer frames" should be of the minibuffer-only type. martin