From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: The window-pub branch Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:21:40 -0800 Message-ID: References: <4CE56872.6050502@gmx.de><4CE6A9C3.5060400@gmx.de> <4CE792B7.7090406@gmx.at><4CE7DEAB.8030401@gmx.de> <4CE80D77.10801@gmx.at><4CE83A6B.6090904@gmx.de> <4CE8EB28.3060607@gmx.at><4CE91FED.9060705@gmx.de> <4CE95C04.1090905@gmx.at> <4CEA3A75.50100@gmx.at><4CEA514F.2030901@gmx.de> <4CEA53A5.9080009@gmx.at><4CEA575E.5020607@gmx.de> <4CEA78DB.6010107@gmx.at> <4CEAA8C5.6080503@gmx.at> <4CEB703A.4070309@gmx.at> <4CEBDE5B.1070904@gmx.at><4CEBF770.6080309@gmx.at> <4CFA8432.5000708@gmx.de><4CFB7B30.9030309@gmx.at> <4CFBF5CE.9090200@gmx.de><4CFCAB94.5010208@gmx.at> <4CFD20DF.4000701@gmx.de><4CFD3C78 .8050102@gmx.at> <4CFD671B.5010502@gmx.de> <4CFDEDD2.6060402@gmx.at> <0AC0EE7C394E4356B0D6A3E25A26B470@us.oracle.com> <4CFE6786.7010705@gmx.at> <2E2DF95135DA4B8F9F96C1AEA1D6C606@us.oracle.c! ! om> <4CFE7567.40409 03@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291746176 22659 80.91.229.12 (7 Dec 2010 18:22:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'grischka' , 'Stefan Monnier' , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'martin rudalics'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 07 19:22:51 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ2Bf-0004cg-84 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:22:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56405 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQ2Be-0002ow-Fa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:22:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47528 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQ2BZ-0002oo-BX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:22:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ2BY-0001Un-2d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:22:45 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:39848) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ2BX-0001UZ-Sa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:22:44 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id oB7IMaif027934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:22:38 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id oB7G1Its017126; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:22:36 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt006.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 833661521291746102; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:21:42 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.219.164) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:21:42 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4CFE7567.4040903@gmx.at> Thread-Index: AcuWOCorNye0VBkjRu2j9jk3u2IhXQAALyWg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:133513 Archived-At: > So what about > C-x 2 > M-: (select-window (next-window)) Dunno. Maybe _that_ demonstrates a M-: bug. Or not (below you indicate that you've found a command-loop bug). I suggest (again) that you take M-: out of the mix while trying to figure out if there are `select-window' or `display-buffer' or command-loop bugs. Jumping off to "fix" M-: is not the way to _start_. > >> Moreover the modeline of the *scratch* window indicates that > >> the window is selected > > > > Which it is. This is just further proof of that fact. > > That I'm "using a command that evaluates a sexp and then restores the > window selection"? No, that the *scratch* window was in fact selected. That was the question (remember?). It was claimed that the window wasn't being selected, as demonstrated by text insertion not going there. > > No, input does not go to the other frame. Not during the > > evaluation of the sexp given to M-:. It is only _after_ > > M-: is finished that further input goes to the > > window that was originally selected. > > Even in the C-x 2 example? There is no other frame in your C-x 2 example. But yes, the `select-window' still _does_ select the window. Again, use (progn (select-window...) (insert "ABC")) to see that. Your C-x 2 example shows that M-: does not always _restore_ the window selection. But it does not show that `select-window' does not select the window for insertion. But again, I think your conversation is not about M-:. The original M-: example was supposed to demonstrate a bug in `select-window'. My point was that it does not do that. When you use M-: you introduce additional behavior - you are not just testing evaluation of a `select-window' sexp. > >> The problem is within the interaction between Emacs and the window > >> manager. It does not depend on M-:. > > > > What problem? The fact that _after_ M-: the same window > > is selected as before it? That behavior certainly _does_ > > depend on M-:. > > > > You have not shown any bug in `select-window'. > > Indeed. So I guess we are agreed on that, at least. A bug in `select-window' should be demonstrated without recourse to M-:. It's quite possible that there are bugs in all of M-:, select-window, and display-buffer, but they should be diagnosed separately. > > You've just gotten confused because M-: does not only > > evaluate a sexp. Take M-: out of the equation and > > then try to demonstrate the supposed `select-window' bug. > > It's a bug in the command loop. I can exhibit the same bug using > `select-window' or `select-frame'. Great, so you've found your answer. After fixing that problem you can revisit the M-: behavior to see if you still think that M-: itself needs fixing. I'm outta here. As I said, I don't even bind M-: to `eval-expression' personally, so I shouldn't really care whether or not you "fix" it to become something different.