From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: About the 'minibuffer' frame parameter Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:51:36 +0300 Message-ID: <83mvklhluf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <579E3F9E.8020200@gmx.at> <83h9azl4s1.fsf@gnu.org> <57A4C0DE.3060506@gmx.at> <837fbvkofs.fsf@gnu.org> <57A5AF03.30807@gmx.at> <8360rck7kd.fsf@gnu.org> <57A84256.8030706@gmx.at> <83popji89w.fsf@gnu.org> <57A9940B.6030005@gmx.at> <8337mehu5u.fsf@gnu.org> <57A9FFDE.10106@gmx.at> <83pophhq1a.fsf@gnu.org> <57AA141C.5010701@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1470765153 13008 195.159.176.226 (9 Aug 2016 17:52:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:52:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 09 19:52:29 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 1bXBCW-0003Gp-R6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:52:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37135 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBCT-0007fq-LA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:52:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45756) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBCK-0007eW-EK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:52:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBCH-0000na-Av for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:52:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54165) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBCH-0000nJ-7d; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:52:13 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2937 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBCD-0000kQ-45; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:52:11 -0400 In-reply-to: <57AA141C.5010701@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:34:20 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:206513 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:34:20 +0200 > From: martin rudalics > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > 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 can look at what window-frame returns for that window, can't we? > > 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. Yes, but IMO nil is not a meaningful value. If we know better, we should return a more concrete value. > > 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. Yes, of course, the current situation is not impossible. We are talking about improving it.