From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4E6F45A0.2030801@gmx.at> References: <4E6C80BF.2060002@gmx.at> <4E6DCB0A.4060605@gmx.at> <87mxeaar26.fsf@wanadoo.es> <4E6DFF55.3000708@gmx.at> <87ehzlnaxj.fsf@wanadoo.es> <4E6E1D4C.7030601@gmx.at> <87littrcyy.fsf@wanadoo.es> <831uvlyckf.fsf@gnu.org> <83zki9wx4u.fsf@gnu.org> <4E6E4EC7.8070901@gmx.at> <83vcsxwp69.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315915187 27756 80.91.229.12 (13 Sep 2011 11:59:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 13 13:59:42 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R3ReN-0006tK-O4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43236 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3ReM-0004OX-Mr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:59:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33537) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3ReH-0004Nc-5H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:59:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3ReG-0007DV-6r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:59:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:51956) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3ReF-0007DA-Pz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:59:32 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2011 11:59:29 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-54-95.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.54.95]) [62.47.54.95] by mail.gmx.net (mp055) with SMTP; 13 Sep 2011 13:59:29 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19vEtUBtJ5vUkAWFCDrcpK+LccHvamt3NIS5l++nl m6dkORWomni3ty User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: <83vcsxwp69.fsf@gnu.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 213.165.64.23 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:143964 Archived-At: >> This would break `delete-frame' which apparently _should_ delete a frame >> even if it's the last one in that case. > > ??? That special frame cannot possibly be deleted anyway, because it > is never displayed. Are you sure? Even if there's another visible frame? > Are we talking about the same thing? By "that case" I meant the last visible frame. `other-visible-frames-p` calls other_visible_frames which is the routine `delete-frame' uses to decide whether a frame can be deleted with FORCE nil. So the criterion I use is the same criterion used by `delete-frame'. martin