From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Regarding proc x_make_frame_visible in w32term.c Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:49:06 +0100 Message-ID: <484DC172.6070109@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1213055467 20282 80.91.229.12 (9 Jun 2008 23:51:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:51:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: brianjiang@gdnt.com.cn Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 10 01:51:49 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K5r9K-0001zc-3r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:51:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50853 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K5r8W-0003TZ-Vp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:50:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K5r6y-0002xM-NM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K5r6x-0002wW-7C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43460 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K5r6w-0002wN-SA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mk-outboundfilter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.23]:33620) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K5r6w-0003Ge-Fg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:14 -0400 Original-X-Trace: 128181258/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/F2S/$ACCEPTED/freedom2Surf-customers/83.67.23.108 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 83.67.23.108 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: jasonr@gnu.org X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAA9eTUhTQxds/2dsb2JhbACBWq5y X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,614,1204502400"; d="scan'208";a="128181258" X-IP-Direction: IN Original-Received: from i-83-67-23-108.freedom2surf.net (HELO wanchan.jasonrumney.net) ([83.67.23.108]) by smtp.f2s.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2008 00:49:13 +0100 Original-Received: from [192.168.249.27] (chiko.jasonrumney.net [192.168.249.27]) by wanchan.jasonrumney.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00DF412; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:49:33 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=8086879D X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:98830 Archived-At: brianjiang@gdnt.com.cn wrote: > w32term.c, proc x_make_frame_visible > /* my_show_window (f, FRAME_W32_WINDOW (f), f->async_iconified ? > SW_RESTORE : SW_SHOW); */ > my_show_window (f, FRAME_W32_WINDOW (f), SW_SHOWNORMAL); > The line commented is exactly what I want. I wonder why it is > commented out and replaced by "SW_SHOWNORMAL" one. Any consideration for > it? Can we change it back? I cannot find any description about it in > the change log. That line has been commented out since it was added in 1997, the SW_SHOWNORMAL version has always been there. Perhaps the maintainer at the time was experimenting with improving the behavior, but some other bug was interfering, so he left the line in a comment to come back to later. I've swapped the lines over now, if problems start to surface regarding iconifying and restoring frames, at least we can add a comment that explains why that line is commented out.