From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:41:28 -0400 Message-ID: <871uvkcuvr.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <4E6C80BF.2060002@gmx.at> <4E6DCB0A.4060605@gmx.at> <87mxeaar26.fsf@wanadoo.es> <4E6DFF55.3000708@gmx.at> <87ehzlnaxj.fsf@wanadoo.es> <4E6E1D4C.7030601@gmx.at> <87littrcyy.fsf@wanadoo.es> <831uvlyckf.fsf@gnu.org> <83zki9wx4u.fsf@gnu.org> <4E6E4EC7.8070901@gmx.at> <87obypvacd.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E6F45D3.3010105@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315928507 31625 80.91.229.12 (13 Sep 2011 15:41:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 13 17:41:42 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R3V7F-0006x8-Vp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:41:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59286 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3V7F-0001ib-I5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:41:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40264) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3V7C-0001hD-DM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:41:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3V7B-0003A3-HY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:41:38 -0400 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.145]:55084) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3V7A-00039e-4O; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:41:36 -0400 Original-Received: from furball (dhcp-128-36-14-41.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8DFfS9V025895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:41:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4E6F45D3.3010105@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:00:19 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.145 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.132.50.145 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:143973 Archived-At: martin rudalics writes: >> Emacs should never automatically delete the last frame on a terminal; >> that is obnoxious. So other-visible-frames-p needs to be changed to >> handle this. (Not sure why that function is in C, btw; it could be >> written in Lisp.) > > Without doing FRAME_SAMPLE_VISIBILITY? I have no idea how to do that so > I'd be grateful if someone wrote such a function. I'm somewhat lost > with daemons and terminals. I've fixed this directly in window-deletable-p. >> Secondly, the current code is too aggressive in deciding that a frame >> can be deleted. Consider the following sequence: >> >> C-h k RET >> C-x o => switch to the *Help* window >> C-x 5 2 => pop to a new frame displaying *Help* >> q => the frame is deleted >> >> I don't think this is quite right. The new frame was not created as a >> "temporary frame" for displaying the *Help* window, but by the user's >> explicit `C-x 5 2' command. It just so happened that a special-mode >> buffer was current at the time. In this situation, quit-window should >> not delete the frame. > > Then I'll revert to the previous behavior which kills the frame even if it > has some buffer it could show instead. Note sure what you mean. Wouldn't that make the frame deletion even more aggressive?