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, 19 Mar 2021 15:35:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83czvxd079.fsf@gnu.org> <83blbhcz41.fsf@gnu.org> <83sg4sbs6w.fsf@gnu.org> <694e12db-a19c-31f8-077c-62d32b640eb9@gmx.at> <83o8fgfgjn.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtuze31r.fsf@gnu.org> 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="4076"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 19 16:36:39 2021 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 1lNHB1-0000wu-1W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:36:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34538 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNHAz-0001f3-Ns for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:36:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38826) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNH9l-00013T-HO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:35:21 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:13097 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNH9g-00053L-NI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:35:21 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 57625 invoked by uid 3782); 19 Mar 2021 15:35:14 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15c9a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.154]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:35:14 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 6807 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Mar 2021 15:35:13 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83mtuze31r.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) 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:266601 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 14:33:20 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:40:52 +0000 > > Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > > What about answering questions about unsaved buffers, running processes > > > > > ... in such a situation? I never use emacsclient so I have no idea how > > > > > this should behave in practice. > > > > I don't use emacsclient either. But questions about unsaved buffers > > > > seem to prevent Emacs terminating until they get answered. The same for > > > > running processes (at least, for gdb). > > > Are we shutting down Emacs, or are we returning to a headless daemon > > > state? > > Returning to a headless daemon state. > Then I think there's no need to ask those questions at all. Emacs is > not going away, so it's okay to leave unsaved edits in the session > that continues to run. Yes, I think that's right. > > When I now try Miha's recipe: > > (In last frame of emacsclient:) > > M-: (run-at-time 10 nil #'make-frame '((window-system . x))) > > C-x C-f foo > > Close the frame by clicking on its close button > > > > , the new frame comes up _with_ the minibuffer visible. I don't > > understand how the mini window survived with its contents, and it > > worries me. > Why does it worry you? You've asked Emacs to create a frame, and a > frame by default has a mini-window. Right? I understand it a lot better now. The new mini-window gets the minibuffers only because I had minibuffer-follows-selected-frame set to t. With either of the other values, the minibuffers remain on the old inaccessible frame. This is not good. > > Could it be that the last frame isn't actually deleted from the Emacs > > daemon when clicking on its close button? > I think indeed that's what happens, because otherwise clicking there > would have shut down Emacs -- which it doesn't in the daemon case. Yes, this is the case. I would dearly like to find a way of determining if this last frame is still visible, or iconified, or whatever, as opposed to inaccessible. The old frame in the above recipe was a -nw frame, effectively a TTY, and `frame-visible-p' returns t for it, even though it is not even displayable (it's containing shell has gone). > > This is the sort of thing I would like to be able to read about in the > > Elisp manual > You expect the ELisp manual to describe the internals to this detail? > That's stuff for comments in the code (adding which will be very > welcome), not for the ELisp reference. Hmm. There is effectively nothing about the effect of Emacs as a daemon in Elisp. > > along with basic questions like "How can one test whether one is in > > an emacsclient session rather than an ordinary Emacs?". > This seems to be a matter of improving indexing: see the variable > mode-line-client and how it is computed. OK, thanks. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).