Re: suggested feature -- console-mode frame title sets Xterm title

[Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:
> > If you're talking about the frame's name, what you would specify to
> > switch frames, then I don't see why this is desirable.  Always using
> > the F<n> name seems better.
> 
> I thought about using the xterm's title as the frame's name.  People
> may wish to use the name displayed in the xterm's title because it's
> more descriptive, and thuis more easily remembered, than F<n>.  In
> effect, the string in the title could act as the frame's name, making
> the use of set-frame-name unnecessary.  (Which means, btw, that, if
> Miles's suggestion is implemented, we should decide what to do with
> set-frame-name: should it affect the xterm title or the F<n> displayed
> in the mode line [or both]).

I really think it ought to work as close to the way X does as possible,
with the F%d notation only used as (1) an abbreviated form displayed in
the mode-line (since the `true name' is too long), and (2) possibly as a
`shortcut name' allowed for switching-frame commands as I described
earlier.

In X, the displayed frame `title' is either the frame's name (set by
set-frame-name), or if that's nil, a string computed using
frame-title-format.  select-frame-by-name actually seems to use the
frame's title, not it's name.

I see no reason _not_ to use this same model for ttys, and doing so
would be a big win for consistency.  If, as I described earlier, F%d
notation were still be displayed in mode-lines, and usable for
select-frame-by-name, the current tty behavior would also largely be
preserved.

I also think that the F%d stuff should work on X -- then there would be
basically no difference between X and ttys in this area.

-Miles
-- 
`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
 that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
 less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.'  [The Economist]