From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers! Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:13:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53833023-d959-07af-7611-aa2e0bdcc1bc@gmx.at> <0d14bfc4-8e8e-d3b9-e0e1-ee4bf2e6449d@gmx.at> <20201125210947.GB8228@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="939"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Andrii Kolomoiets , emacs-devel@gnu.org, enometh@meer.net, Stefan Monnier , Gregory Heytings , Eli Zaretskii To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 27 11:14:06 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kialR-0000AT-VZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:14:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46890 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kialR-0007BR-0c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:14:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiakf-0006lp-HS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:13:17 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:63057 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiakd-00054A-5P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:13:17 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 59140 invoked by uid 3782); 27 Nov 2020 10:13:13 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15c16.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.22]) by localhost.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:13:11 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5351 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Nov 2020 10:13:11 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:259862 Archived-At: Hello, Martin. On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 16:44:11 +0100, martin rudalics wrote: > > I wouldn't write it is "chaotic". The behavior you consider "chaotic" > > is well-defined, and has been there since Emacs 21 at least: the > > minibuffer moves from frame F1 to frame F2 if and only if the > > minibuffer is active on frame F1 and a recursive minibuffer is entered > > on frame F2. There are other possible behaviors of course, but IMO > > the current one is a reasonable one. > The basic behavioral change I see is with > 'enable-recursive-minibuffers' non-nil and two frames: When I type C-h > f setq in the first frame and C-h f cons in the second frame, hit RET, > reselect the minibuffer window and hit RET again, with Emacs 27 a help > window pops up in the first frame while Emacs 28 reuses the help window > of the second frame. In both cases the second RET goes to the second > frame and both behaviors seem reasonable to me. > If, with Emacs 28, I set 'minibuffer-follows-selected-frame' to non-nil, Do you mean "to nil", here? That variable is non-nil by default. > the behavior does not entirely match that of Emacs 27 because the second > RET must be typed in the first frame. So if some application relies on > the exact replication of the behavior of Emacs 27, we have a regression. Well the new behaviour is explicitly not wholly compatible with the old. I'm not sure that counts as a regression. > martin -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).