From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: frameset-to-register Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:49:00 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1375735926 21689 80.91.229.3 (5 Aug 2013 20:52:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:52:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 05 22:52:08 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V6Ris-0001tX-Rh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:49:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60727 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6Ris-0002h4-1Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:49:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53225) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6Rio-0002gy-Se for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:49:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6Rin-0007ja-V5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:49:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ea0-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c01::22c]:65281) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6Rin-0007jM-O1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:49:41 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r16so1866647ead.3 for ; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+CNITajZgOxZh54OgK5H4JQ4i/Ipo9uBHGIZXokyNMg=; b=wR9HZAnrB+n+f1HRyf93JHBM2ILxYo0hMm4WwrSvgCmXd4aZHe7crcXdDSN7mRSVGy LYywupqj2jncNKfvf/K1vog02RMhQC5ZsyqBUjzrddfJHvgSZNH+Mo/AU6t/+8bscB7T j/xCyoo14I/0AHdIRahLUzzY67X7jMAsOODmO2sAFJXrwe2t9Nq+P5NXAh/vaa4/I7r5 LHY5haWSWCsv9YeyC2DNqoggHXpcUZWU1FJOORzoROmwm6K4BSHISKGqE9SqBU4dFSYX EiVSgyrjegtsJ3mY2lhrOLKtLoubQWVBVxPZFcVSMohQjbo4XdPh/NwO2VmU8WCrF3Uo W7uw== X-Received: by 10.14.9.72 with SMTP id 48mr15584353ees.42.1375735780958; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.14.133.15 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4013:c01::22c 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:162443 Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Drew Adams wrote: > Why does this not just replace `frame-configuration-to-register', i.e., > C-x r f? What are the differences? In particular, what, if anything, > does `frame-configuration-to-register' let you do that > `frameset-to-register' does not let you do? I don't know, and that's the point. I've used frame-configuration-to-register all of perhaps ten times, eight or so just to test something. I think it makes more sense to leave both options and let the user choose. > I understand that a frameset is Lisp-readable, so it can be persisted. Caveat user. The frameset I'm using for frameset-to-register is not really "Lisp-readable", because I've opted to filter out as few frame parameters as possible. That means that non-readable parameters, like buffer-list, are kept. Why? Because frameset-to-register, like frame-configuration-to-register, is an in-session command, and keeping links to live (or dead) objects provides a better in-session user experience. If someone someday decides to save to disk the frameset contained in a register, we'll have to add code to filter out additional parameters (should be trivial, once the use case is clearly defined). > But it's not clear why one would use `frame-configuration-to-register' > if `frameset-to-register' is now available. Perhaps you don't want dead frames to come back to life. > I can guess that `frame-configuration-to-register' might be quicker, > but what are the real, user-level differences that would mean that a > user might want both to be available (and bound to keys)? You try and tell me ;-) J