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: master cc29fab3a6: Redisplay "invisible" frames that are actually visible on modern X Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:29:19 -0500 Message-ID: References: <167204147913.11300.799159655252309055@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20221226075759.AAF44C00613@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <83o7rp0xn1.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40108"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 27 16:30:12 2022 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 1pABu8-000AGM-LA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2022 16:30:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pABtR-0002te-EE; Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:29:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pABtO-0002tR-Cx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:29:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pABtM-000316-Kh; Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:29:26 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A1DE11000F2; Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:29:22 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 16EC810002F; Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:29:21 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1672154961; bh=gbRkuBWgjvYU8kOx33ZUQ7BVomfuiJIrFgfbVmInTws=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=OiKHRMsNV6EEsI4/5nWry5PiPPPj4ucYsR/JPwPUNnHJmBGwOsDNiEATC+YtB0PWa h32ia06pYk4W07L3qsJRs+2GAZJviekeJS0wW3yMMb1UeXnhRbhdyFPRoQP61STqFb t9pOaaVWXSQeFWsl3qIkpRBRND1wBBSk787Up/AS/K3nQbQ6vbWjPuExYQPLJq0jtl jjBLq3cqhMWPUeenDd4Z9btyFyjdMsFdyZmMOiVUijR1BaTIPDHvN0iDe18OHEcpOl FMGjEkbgsDI8yXINoY4i3+VKUZFOkBfd8rRXYtTyBa3oFuBh0RaO/Ya0NNUH++HCAm dHSOxATi1zKog== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.200.228]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB6BC1201E7; Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83o7rp0xn1.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 27 Dec 2022 15:44:18 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca 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: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:301963 Archived-At: >> FWIW, while this sounds about right for `icon`ified frames, for those >> frames that are marked as actually invisible, I think we should try and >> keep them as invisible as possible. > > I'm not sure I agree. I believe this could belong to some new GUI > ideas (all of which are invariably copy-cat'ed from MS-Windows ;-), > whereby you have a means of showing a small-but-still-readable image > of an otherwise invisible frame, e.g., by hovering the mouse above > some desktop icon or widget. If there's some representation of that frame somewhere on the screen, then I think it belongs in the `icon`ified state, not the `invisible` state. > If that is the intent, In my experience the intent of `invisible` frames is for them to be literally invisible as if the frame did not exist at all. Quoting from the docstring of `make-frame-invisible`: On graphical displays, invisible frames are not updated and are usually not displayed at all, even in a window system=E2=80=99s "taskba= r". > But I do think this should be an optional feature (we could argue > later about the defaults). In an Emacs session with a dozen > invisible/iconified frames, updating those frames without the user's > say-so could be a misfeature and a performance hit. Hmm... didn't think of that aspect, but indeed, my Emacs sessions usually grow to around a hundred frames, the vast majority of which are `icon`ified. The usual redisplay optimizations should hopefully keep the performance impact in check, tho (except for those iconified frames that display a buffer that's changed in the background, I guess). Rather than rely on "optional feature", would it be possible to rely on "expose events" to detect when an iconified frame needs to be updated? Stefan