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: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:22:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20201013190255.GA8896@ACM> <838sca0w7k.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9fczwyc.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="1695"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, 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 19:23:58 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 1kSkVK-0000Lq-7g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:23:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54348 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSkVJ-00068R-AR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:23:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46724) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSkTz-0004nn-JL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:22:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:59210) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSkTx-0003Ca-0z; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:22:34 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 25FDC80B82; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 94BB6809C6; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:22:29 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1602696149; bh=kI3vlw0ypyDYtTW2ve1lQa+a1d1QYFczcn+LWgcj0l4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GNw8533Xh7SG5wrcICOdeF03kLJ5fGz+WudLNf7BKA4EbLvidPYz7Q45iTfqDLjkP AdSKDiyIJcdrDFRFyCenN3806vUH5eV7m4w5QMvj8SANhbIpY/s8vuXl1ZGVeMrdWy Aj6QWsLReBiTkRdx+rgsC4JeZvlQAzsozcFE/6dKsiWonczhoSR/vzUvXpfImsTglB zI956ZI1MQ8hcOA3MSLUjuyifWQX1G/2fbt6x39a3iBs3ytOm9mVchvy3i8v8lSE7e G3BiOK+NytNV1Yv1X3lZWSjQ0nBGJhuQtRPwpaHKRv29uAuJxC6rxF8wpiIykJAmf6 Gg9oSFTJ3UtXg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 691C7120124; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:22:29 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83v9fczwyc.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 14 Oct 2020 17:47:07 +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 = 2020/10/14 12:53:19 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:257665 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 > Maybe that's the bug we should fix, then? You mean, we'd make the active minibuffer follow along with changes to the selected frame? Yes, that would be more consistent. I think that's what we do with the echo area already, so there's precedent for it. I can't tell if it would be an improvement or a regression (I think it wouldn't affect my use cases either way). Stefan PS: Just trying out now the echo-area case to check I remembered it right, I see we have a bug there (that dates back to Emacs-25 at least): % emacs -Q src/emacs.c C-x 5 b RET M-: (message "hello") RET ... use your window manager to select the other frame ... we now see "hello" in both miniwindows, whereas I expected it to be seen only in the selected frame (i.e. to be erased from the previously selected frame). C-g we now see "Quit" in one of the miniwindows and "hello" in the other.