From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-26.0.91: switch-to-buffer-other-window runs too slowly (about 0.1s) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:00:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83efk6g93z.fsf@gnu.org> <544b8346-bda9-45eb-9573-1d51d9f768b2@Spark> <83bmfag8gu.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ie24z1.fsf@gmail.com> <87sh8m23tc.fsf@gmail.com> <87k1ty22p1.fsf@gmail.com> <837epyg30w.fsf@gnu.org> <83370mg0qj.fsf@gnu.org> <5AB94021.8080700@gmx.at> <83o9jadyn5.fsf@gnu.org> <5AB9F18D.207@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522151967 19316 195.159.176.226 (27 Mar 2018 11:59:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:59:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 27 13:59:23 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f0nG7-0004wN-3m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:59:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33938 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0nIA-0000ZP-AY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:01:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41405) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0nHQ-0000YY-3y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:00:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0nHN-0006CH-3R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:00:44 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:46373) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0nHM-0006BU-T9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:00:41 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w2RC0Zu6021537; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:00:35 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C7CD760559; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:00:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <5AB9F18D.207@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:23:57 +0200") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6251=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6251> : inlines <6520> : streams <1782408> : uri <2615694> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:224094 Archived-At: >> No, it's very much possible and easy, but if we're in such a situation >> before display-buffer is called (i.e. it was not considered a problem >> before we called display-buffer), why should we assume that >> display-buffer should change it? > The caller of 'display-buffer' may have selected an invisible or > iconified frame. We nowhere rule out such a possibility. That's indeed what I said: "it's very much possible and easy". And he just as well may have selected a frame that's deiconified but hidden under tens of other frames (or other applications's windows). Which is why I think the logic should be the same for "visible" as for "raised". Stefan "not to mention the case of the frame being in another workspace"