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: Question about =?utf-8?Q?=C3=BCarent-frame?= changes Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 07:58:12 +0300 Message-ID: <86h6ac9r4r.fsf@gnu.org> References: <9bc2af0a-d3c1-4ba6-a350-af6e2b85695d@gmx.at> <86ikut9bup.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13623"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 19 06:59:04 2024 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 1sr9Fv-0003Pf-OY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 06:59:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sr9FF-00027y-Nw; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:58:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sr9FA-0001kS-Ar for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:58:17 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sr9F9-0000u4-Nq; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:58:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=9093nKCBFxFYvcFI40WU+qVzPQzp2v3Zc+FgHLKgLtk=; b=GWBpzJ24uLoQ0u5DW/i1 EnMO40rZ6lebmV4Msl70s0r2GdvFLj9wBEr0KIcNL6ER5wkuult93+Ar8ZfYSVHtaMCUJIfuAmA85 aN1ZbG3lQktiF5pZOxsq9/DwvRSMZabqN3ER21dDqS83N7XNFhKF7zoz1xd6lQXPcDLEcbBwlyD+t GeNjXLS+NKWrZurzhhstdCgObva6xlaZfmxqwaSp7xJA/zFpu7tku5AcnVuoftRM3hqR5AXllvGOw /mcSPVn7FKvQX2fZTyY0IowOEgZ9rKDW4ihVBId9yVR7JQqm4XJAyThB3gvsPpjwRDCfAyTb26YVl hgghF4vrTAKVdQ==; In-Reply-To: (message from martin rudalics on Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:52:00 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:323746 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:52:00 +0200 > Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: martin rudalics > > > What you describe makes sens for GUI frames, but seems to make little > > sense for TTY frames, because frame visibility situation there is much > > simpler. > > You mean because only one normal frame can be visible at any time. > However, child frames complicate the situation considerably because > Emacs itself has to take care of their visibility instead of the WM. > > For example, I can type into a GUI window text beneath a (small) child > frame as long as that child frame doesn't have focus. Emulating such > behavior with text emanating at the right of the child frame on a TTY > seems tricky at least. I'm saying that this scenario which you described: > Reparenting is useful because you can set up one child frame for some > special purpose, make it invisible when you don't need it, and move it > to another frame and make it visible there whenever you want to. On > GUIs, this approach has the advantage that you can avoid the (at least > here) costly process of setting up frame faces every time anew. Emacs > tooltips do that by default and I recall that showing a tooltip every > time incurred two entire GC cycles here. sounds not very useful to me on a TTY, because switching frames on a TTY will make the child frame invisible anyway. And why would I want to see a child of frame F1 when I display only frame F2? So reparenting seems almost pointless on a TTY. Of course, I'm not objected to allowing such reparenting on TTY displays, but given that Gerd says it's not trivial, I think we will be fine without that feature on TTY displays.