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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 20:26:08 +0200 Message-ID: <83pn4l1327.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20201031194419.GC5887@ACM> <834kmago8m.fsf@gnu.org> <20201031203914.GD5887@ACM> <835z6ogc1h.fsf@gnu.org> <20201101195313.GA6190@ACM> <83sg9rd6cp.fsf@gnu.org> <20201102185147.GC7297@ACM> <83mtzzd0s3.fsf@gnu.org> <20201103210853.GA21923@ACM> <83ft5pax2p.fsf@gnu.org> <20201104173954.GA14535@ACM> <83v9ed3nbw.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2322"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: enometh@meer.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrii Kolomoiets Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 10 19:27:15 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 1kcYMN-0000UY-PF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 19:27:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47840 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kcYMM-00058m-RB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:27:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38752) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kcYLA-0004NR-Qq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:26:02 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38220) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kcYL9-00017O-Ar; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:25:59 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3166 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kcYL8-0006hS-J5; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:25:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Andrii Kolomoiets on Tue, 10 Nov 2020 19:27:45 +0200) 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:258984 Archived-At: > From: Andrii Kolomoiets > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 19:27:45 +0200 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , enometh@meer.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Stefan Monnier writes: > > >> Does anyone else think this is common usage, to have a minibuffer-only frame > >> while other frames also have minibuffers? > > > > FWIW, I've never seen it in the wild (I've seen mixes of frames with > > and without minibuffers, but when there is a minibuffer-only frame > > never seen it accompanied with other frames-with-minibuffer, except for > > frames on other terminals). > > I don't sure what the "in the wild" means, but I know at least two > packages that shows minibuffer-only child frame on reading user input: I didn't ask if this was possible, or used, I asked if such usage is common. It is clear that we cannot find a default that will fit all the uses, but we should have the default that works well in common use cases.