Re: master 4b98a79a50: Improve X event timestamp tracking

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> writes:

> Sure, but don't we have, in this instance, an option that doesn't
> involve fighting the window manager?

No, we don't.  It's still fighting with the window manager, just in a
less well abstracted and more arbitrary way.

> It's definitely from a more naive time. You can tell by the lack of
> inter-client security.

The truth is very few people still have open X servers that aren't
protected by, at least, MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1.

> I'd argue that my suggestion is consistent with the spirit of the API
> and changes behavior only in a narrow case.

The spirit of the API has already been stretched so far that it is only
usefully interpreted when a window is first mapped.

> Your proposal involves changing the behavior of every x-focus-frame
> call made when Emacs doesn't have focus, yes?

Yes, it changes the call to work, as opposed to not work.

> (Also, aren't you worried that the focus check will lead to behavioral
> inconsistencies?)

What inconsistencies?

> Because there's a less invasive alternative.

It's more invasive, because it adds an extra Lisp function that
programmers have to remember to call.

> Customizing the variable to nil breaks emacsclient.

They can configure their window manager to allow emacsclient to raise
frames, or make emacsclient bind it to some other value that works for
them.