From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GUI vs TTY when saving & restoring framesets Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:44:09 +0000 Message-ID: <20170122204409.GE12823@acm> References: <20170122132727.GA12823@acm> <831svv5a4l.fsf@gnu.org> <20170122180010.GB12823@acm> <83o9yz3qtw.fsf@gnu.org> <20170122185537.GC12823@acm> <83k29m52rc.fsf@gnu.org> <20170122193841.GD12823@acm> <83inp650b6.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1485117911 18846 195.159.176.226 (22 Jan 2017 20:45:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:45:11 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 22 21:45:07 2017 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 1cVP0Y-00043f-Ge for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:45:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37651 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVP0d-0000jv-In for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:45:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54496) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVP02-0000jd-S9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:44:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVOzy-000463-Ax for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:44:30 -0500 Original-Received: from ocolin.muc.de ([193.149.48.4]:61522 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVOzy-00045n-4C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:44:26 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 51673 invoked by uid 3782); 22 Jan 2017 20:44:24 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FC46969.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.196.105.105]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:44:24 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 19081 invoked by uid 1000); 22 Jan 2017 20:44:09 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83inp650b6.fsf@gnu.org> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.4 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:211557 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 22:03:57 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:38:41 +0000 > > Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > I always have several frames in my sessions, each one with its buffer, > > > and when I restore the sessions, each frame comes up with the same > > > buffer it had when I shut down Emacs, no complicated frame-walking > > > dance necessary, neither before shutting down Emacs nor after > > > restarting it. > > Something similar happens when I use the defaults. But the buffers come > > up in the "wrong" frames (i.e. associated with a different key), > > making it not useful for me. > Then perhaps the problem is that the frame names are jumbled after > restoring them, something that "normal" usage will never reveal, as > most people don't care about the internal numbering of frames, and I > don't think there was a requirement to keep them when restoring. The order of the frames returned by frame-list is not defined in its doc string or the Elisp manual. Maybe it should be. It appears to be in reverse order of creation, presumably because the frame creation routine simply pushes each new frame onto the front of a list. Maybe inserting a judicious nreverse into the frame group code would get me part of what I want. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).