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#11567: 24.0.97; WTF? ROFL! (hilarious bug) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:26:36 +0200 Message-ID: <4FC352DC.5040507@gmx.at> References: <8CBD82E7-3C0F-4E08-9127-9DAE6A1AFC9D@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1338200821 14939 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2012 10:27:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tobias Bading , 11567@debbugs.gnu.org To: Troels Nielsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 28 12:27:00 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SYxAA-0005Fy-H2 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 12:26:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39854 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SYxAA-0007r4-4p for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 06:26:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47871) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SYxA1-0007oe-Ha for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 06:26:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SYx9y-0006sP-FH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 06:26:49 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SYx9y-0006sD-Bg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 06:26:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SYxBC-0000RR-Qg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 06:28:02 -0400 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: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:28:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 11567 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 11567-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B11567.13382008821686 (code B ref 11567); Mon, 28 May 2012 10:28:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 11567) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 May 2012 10:28:02 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46248 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SYxBB-0000R5-IF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 06:28:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:47854) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SYxBA-0000Qs-0f for 11567@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 06:28:00 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 May 2012 10:26:37 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-38-14.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.38.14]) [62.47.38.14] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 28 May 2012 12:26:37 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/hsnJVIArhcvOyOUzXu5Rxvw7RUHbzUK60vLJP8c Lm0D0MRUx5vdGL 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:60415 Archived-At: > I propose the following patch, which does a little more checking if > it's likely that emacs has been opening a special frame for the > *Completions*-buffer. With some effort you could probably still get > emacs to iconify an unexpecting frame, but I don't think many people > would, if not for playing hide and seek that is... ;) Why can't we use `window--delete' instead of `iconify-frame' here? martin