From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10729: 24.0.93; On MS-Windows: emacsclientw.exe -n -c does create a new frame, but does not always display the requested file or the requested directory (24.0.92 does) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:21:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4F314197.90309@gmx.at> References: <4F301471.9000402@gmx.at> <4F30D87C.9040408@gmx.at> <4F313601.6080604@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328628206 13679 80.91.229.3 (7 Feb 2012 15:23:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:23:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Albert , 10729@debbugs.gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 07 16:23:25 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RumtA-0003J8-1K for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:23:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35835 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rumt9-0003pL-Fw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53179) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rumsx-0003kF-ST for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rumss-0000OW-0O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:11 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:55488) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rumsr-0000OR-V7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rumtl-0005wH-MG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:24:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10729 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10729-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10729.132862818722750 (code B ref 10729); Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:24:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10729) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Feb 2012 15:23:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59108 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rumss-0005ur-H1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:35499) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rumsq-0005uN-3V for 10729@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:05 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Feb 2012 15:22:01 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-42-17.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.42.17]) [62.47.42.17] by mail.gmx.net (mp032) with SMTP; 07 Feb 2012 16:22:01 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+4YLV0DOW4WOqgrtq3MPEgyaNpkaAsD3NK80mWqR ot2HEwzIirIRkz In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:56642 Archived-At: >> I'd rather use something like the untested patch below > > OK, you're the expert. Not really. But I think that your patch didn't kill the buffer if it was on the frame. >> (still very fragile >> because it neither verifies that a frame is a frame nor that a buffer is >> a buffer). > > Why don't you add such checks? I don't like changing a function I cannot immediately test. Did you apply my patch? martin