From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacsclient/server finished, documentation, raising frames Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:07:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <45507AB5.5050601@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1162919632 12188 80.91.229.2 (7 Nov 2006 17:13:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel , Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 07 18:13:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhUVu-00082L-3f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:13:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhUVt-0008Fc-Bo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:13:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GhUQS-0002jr-Ox for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:07:52 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GhUQR-0002iI-1X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:07:52 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhUQQ-0002i1-RK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:07:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [132.204.24.67] (helo=mercure.iro.umontreal.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GhUQP-0005tr-Om; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:07:49 -0500 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AA32CF035; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:07:49 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (faina.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.26.177]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA993FE1; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:07:45 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9582F6C7F8; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:07:45 -0500 (EST) Original-To: "Juanma Barranquero" In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue\, 7 Nov 2006 15\:48\:54 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.90 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-2.82, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -2.82) X-DIRO-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:61917 Archived-At: >> The question is also whether it should be triggered only when calling >> `emacsclient' or also when using C-x # to switch to the next client buffer >> (both call server-switch-buffer). > When you use C-x # Emacs already has the focus. The problem I'm > discussing is that, out of the box, Emacs won't get the focus when > sent a file to edit from emacsclient (which will usually be a CMD > window on the foreground). I understand that. But a change in server-switch-buffer will affect both cases, so we have to take it into account. >> For what it's worth, I think we should remove server-window and change >> server-switch-buffer to always use pop-to-buffer (i.e. get the same >> behavior as when one set server-window to pop-to-buffer). > Why? You're removing choices, and the one you prefer, I dislike: I > don't like pop-to-buffer's behavior of preferring another window (I > want server.el to put the buffer into the selected window); and > pop-to-buffer does not do any raise-frame, so the original problem I'm > discussing is still there. I take your objection to mean that you agree with my proposition, at the condition that we improve pop-to-buffer's configurability. I would agree with you, then, Stefan