From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Terminology in multi-tty primitives Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:38:53 -0500 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1230741622 25186 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2008 16:40:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, stephen@xemacs.org, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 31 17:41:28 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LI48F-0001DO-TD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:41:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40831 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LI472-0005NT-4V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:40:04 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LI46w-0005Mb-MI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:39:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LI46w-0005MJ-7D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:39:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35317 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LI46w-0005MG-1U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:39:58 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:42476) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LI46v-0002Di-P8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:39:57 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LI45t-0005Ih-Kd; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:38:53 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:06:27 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:107465 Archived-At: > I think this is not very different from the current situation, as > regards Lisp calls. The reason for make-frame-on-display and > make-frame-on-tty is for invocation with M-x, where you need to > specify the terminal with a string. > These commands could be merged by using a heuristic to > tell whether the argument is a tty device or an X server. I don't think it's important to merge them. More important is to make it clear why they exist. It is not necessary to merge them, but it seems like a simplification. make-frame-on-tty is not currently mentioned in the Emacs Manual. Supposing we added it, that would add to the complexity. If instead we merge the two commands, that would require only small changes in the existing documentation of make-frame-on-display. BTW is `make-frame-on-tty' useful as an interactive function? What would the use-case be for that? I'd say: drop the interactive spec for it... It seems to be a simple wrapper intended for interactive calling. It does not provide much simplification for a caller in Lisp. If it is not useful for interactive calling, maybe we should delete it. By the way, why does it need the conditional that tests window-system? Should the proper handling of window-system be built into `make-frame' instead? If it is needed for all frame creation on MSDOG, putting it in `make-frame' is best because that way it only needs to be done once and callers are all simpler.