From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers! Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 22:00:09 +0200 Message-ID: <834kmago8m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sgafy56d.fsf@gnu.org> <20201015180143.GA10229@ACM> <83wnzrwdy5.fsf@gnu.org> <20201021151945.GA19276@ACM> <20201021200438.GF19276@ACM> <83h7qmkzla.fsf@gnu.org> <20201030220917.GA17594@ACM> <83v9eq97sj.fsf@gnu.org> <20201031161422.GA5887@ACM> <83d00ygx9c.fsf@gnu.org> <20201031194419.GC5887@ACM> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40094"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 31 21:01:33 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kYx48-000AL6-Va for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 21:01:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36232 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kYx47-0006ez-Qc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:01:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52592) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kYx34-00067M-VA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:00:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42809) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kYx33-00051b-Vd; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:00:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3125 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kYx32-0008Vg-LE; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:00:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20201031194419.GC5887@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 19:44:19 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:258589 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 19:44:19 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > I can't remember very clearly, but I think I made this change early on in > the project because the Fthrow (Qexit, str); left some mini-windows in a > messy state; or something like that. That doesn't happen any more. > > So, maybe I should just remove this hunk from the proposed patch. It > doesn't seem that important any more. Fine with me. > How about emptying mini-windows which don't have live minibuffers on > them? This could be tested by Fminibufferp (b, Qt). In practice, when > minibuffer-follows-selected-frame this would empty all mini-windows but > the current one, and when !m-f-s-f it would leave intact the mini-windows > we want to be left intact. let me turn the table and ask why this hunk is needed? What doesn't work right if this code is left in place?