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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:44:12 +0200 Message-ID: <83o8fgfgjn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87pn02ojwu.fsf@miha-pc> <875z1tfn0p.fsf@miha-pc> <83czvxd079.fsf@gnu.org> <83blbhcz41.fsf@gnu.org> <83sg4sbs6w.fsf@gnu.org> <694e12db-a19c-31f8-077c-62d32b640eb9@gmx.at> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27973"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 18 19:48:17 2021 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 1lMxgv-0007BG-CQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 19:48:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50354 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMxgu-00057G-Bd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:48:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54384) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMxd3-0002G3-5K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:44:17 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:33598) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMxcx-0005Q3-5H; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:44:11 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3103 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lMxcw-0003b7-HN; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:44:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Alan Mackenzie on Thu, 18 Mar 2021 16:58:25 +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:266577 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 16:58:25 +0000 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > >> Maybe such open minibuffers should just be aborted (along with any other > > >> recursive edits) when the last frame gets deleted. This would be > > >> simpler to code than preserving those minibuffers somewhere, and > > >> restoring them at the next emacsclient session. Aborting them also > > >> seems more natural, since their contents are unlikely to have any > > >> relevance to the next emacsclient session. > > > > > > Martin, can you comment on this, please? > > > What about answering questions about unsaved buffers, running processes > > ... in such a situation? I never use emacsclient so I have no idea how > > this should behave in practice. > > I don't use emacsclient either. But questions about unsaved buffers > seem to prevent Emacs terminating until they get answered. The same for > running processes (at least, for gdb). Are we shutting down Emacs, or are we returning to a headless daemon state? If the former, we need to ask all those questions before we shut down Emacs. Why is it a problem to ask them?