From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers! Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:28:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20201013190255.GA8896@ACM> <838sca0w7k.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21107"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 14 00:29:25 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 1kSSnM-0005Oy-SW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:29:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49526 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSSnL-00070Z-TD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:29:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59098) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSSmj-0006KA-6d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:28:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:37678) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSSmh-000835-3R; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:28:44 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B50D21006E0; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6B80E1004B3; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:28:40 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1602628120; bh=hQPhxhGsgxzDhTAgye4s5DrKAPMCdHzNNqwujlyz2Ok=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=c7M5+REAOhskPspxee30UjM/QJ64roWJSDsALyauYqgdNkiJEeHlt1GSmBYgU7onn Bh291vWMQhZE3YPOODU4fqrRh6ZchlGQg6b4TSg7HkhaLABV62ZLqUTf8BXrCZWxZJ 745LfEJXIH+twGfF7Zu5wJEWl8nLv9qeHGItIlygHguD5y4F4uIVwvHk3wj4FdPMYh yYfFyizSYJVvdQautkc0BWCUpyMo94Hj8tKvCkPU7hbR0kBDpYVIP0sp8UWwOu+vHv Txcwo/g+7iU97FiJEU3wUJynZ0/Y/qcvPpKgr8+ofpA6enrLYQJiZ1VDOntG+k6W3i QbIlHiqVWBdfw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10AA11202E7; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:28:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <838sca0w7k.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 13 Oct 2020 22:20:15 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/13 18:23:06 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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:257598 Archived-At: >> Seeing as how a minibuffer often has a strong association with its frame >> (e.g., C-x C-f opens a buffer in the same frame it was invoked from), >> this shifting of minibuffers from one frame to another is confusing. > Is it? It makes sure the minibuffer is on the selected frame, which > is natural in many/most use cases. But it only makes sure after you used another minibuffer, so in the remaining 90% of the cases you're still left with an active minibuffer that is not on the selected frame. If that 90% is not considered a problem, then I wonder what's different after using a nested minibuffer to justify the current behavior? Stefan