From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: view mode: `q' does not delete frame Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:08:58 -0500 Message-ID: <87ek4ugr21.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1133622656 14371 80.91.229.2 (3 Dec 2005 15:10:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 03 16:10:53 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EiZ1S-00089N-ES for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:09:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EiZ1T-0005Xs-Hc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:09:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EiZ0c-0005XK-01 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:09:06 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EiZ0b-0005X6-BC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:09:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EiZ0b-0005X2-0B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:09:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.97] (helo=tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EiZ0j-0000rF-CR; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:09:13 -0500 Original-Received: from alfajor ([67.71.25.91]) by tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20051203150859.GIQS1799.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:08:59 -0500 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F1639D75F1; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:08:58 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:55:17 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [0] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:46931 Archived-At: >> I would prefer, of course, that if pop-up-frames = non-nil, the behavior of >> view-remove-frame-by-deleting would follow automatically (by default). > Well, I'm not sure about this: is it really true that someone who > wants view-mode to create a frame for every new buffer in view mode > would like such frame to automatically go away when they quite view > mode? To "go away"? Probably. But "to delete"? No. I know Drew always wants to delete such frames because his window-manager and use pattern make it inconvenient to have too many iconified windows. OTOH with my window manager and my usage pattern, it's the reverse: deleting frames is a major pain in the rear because when they are re-created, I have to manually place them again (and set various other attributes like size, set of workspaces they should appear in, ...). So we should have a function to "make a frame go away" (probably bury-buffer or quit-window or both) and use that, and then make this function customizable so that we can decide whether to delete or to iconify. Stefan