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: Freezing frameset-restore Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:16:46 +0100 Message-ID: <5318BB8E.1010901@gmx.at> References: <5318AFF6.8020206@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: ger.gmane.org 1394129829 18167 80.91.229.3 (6 Mar 2014 18:17:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 06 19:17:17 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1WLcr7-0003PP-4T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:17:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59125 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WLcr6-0007ri-4H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:17:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36841) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WLcqw-0007rD-L0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:17:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WLcqp-0001Vv-CW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:17:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:62766) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WLcqp-0001Vp-2i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:16:59 -0500 Original-Received: from [188.22.234.36] ([188.22.234.36]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MD9q8-1WOryf1LKO-00GXoR; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:16:57 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:MYJgECfc5B4ozPfL/lW0Vhv0U+BHfsfQGmUg2za0tYPFNDhfV8j kl6bp5BFV8xAOLWcHBndnMhQwp5yIW5rq29OUGezbjzlkbq2lmvnQrfjAKlRIMwLrJvhL6e ludt8ZyTakdkOTconhxltBruMR75aRYOnZ6HOf7JqdHT5MYvzl6QDlqj6V1+e69pTM5H0q8 lN46pfe6TV1z1SQKRi3BA== X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.17.21 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:170183 Archived-At: >> Why the term "restored" here and not "reused"? > > "Restored frames" describes (or tries to) all frames that are the > result of restoration, that is, reused frames and new ones (created > specifically to be restored upon). > > Please suggest a better wording, my brain has an overdose of the words > "frame", "window", "restore" and "reuse" and cannot think straight. Still IMO in :delete Delete all frames that weren't restored. This is the default. a "frame that was not restored" refers to a frame stored in a past session or configuration. But IIUC you mean here a frame that existed in the current session or configuration just before you started to restore frames and you were not able to use profitably. At least use "restored upon" instead. >> IIUC "cleanup" means to take care of frames that were not "reused". > > No, the meaning of CLEANUP is to take care of all frames. It just that > most of the time, reused and created frames will be left alone. But... > >> understand that we should take care of "rejected" or "ignored" frames. >> But why care about "reused" and "created" ones? > > ...what if you want to iconify all restored frames too, or just count > them and do something about it? Then CLEANUP is too narrow. Maybe something like POST-RESTORE (which clearly isn't a good term either) to emphasize that it does _not only_ deal with frames that were rejected or ignored. martin