From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers! Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:01:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20201123133613.GA4635@ACM> <53833023-d959-07af-7611-aa2e0bdcc1bc@gmx.at> <0d14bfc4-8e8e-d3b9-e0e1-ee4bf2e6449d@gmx.at> <20201125210947.GB8228@ACM> Reply-To: Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: Andrii Kolomoiets , emacs-devel@gnu.org, enometh@meer.net, Stefan Monnier , Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 27 19:03:51 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 1kii63-000276-8P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:03:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52630 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kii62-0001le-BN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:03:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33736) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kii55-0000yt-Uu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:02:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:61899) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kii53-0000mS-VT; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:02:51 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 0ARI2dMY029219 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:02:39 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 0ARI3Csn002631; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:03:12 GMT In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=ghe@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org 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_PASS=-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:259914 Archived-At: >> My feeling (I did not look at the code) is that too many things were >> changed at once. Perhaps this should be done / have been done in two >> steps, first implement the additional behavior 2, then behavior 3. > > There are two things we could consider with > 'minibuffer-follows-selected-frame' non-nil: > > - Optionally, don't move the minibuffer window too eagerly. Moving the > prompt to my separate *Info* frame that I just want to consult for the > interaction I'm about to perform might look gratuitous. > It does, definitely. What you describe here is the behavior of Emacs 21-27, IIUC. > > - Optionally, tie the frame where a minibuffer interaction was initiated > to that minibuffer and when the ensuing action is performed, make that > frame the selected one. > Isn't this what minibuffer-follows-selected-frame t is supposed to do? (Except that the frame is not automatically selected.) > > But I think the main task for the moment is to fix the > 'minibuffer-follows-selected-frame' nil behavior. > The minibuffer-follows-selected-frame t behavior is also broken, alas, at least it doesn't do what the NEWS item says it should do. My feeling is also that "minibuffer-follows-selected-frame" is not a good generic name for all these behaviors. Perhaps one should have something like "recursive-minibuffer-behavior" with several possible values: move-to-selected-frame-on-activation always-on-selected-frame always-on-selected-frame-and-raise-activation-frame tie-to-activation-frame (This is just a draft. Perhaps these options should in fact be split in two separate options.)