From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24803: Redirection problem with separate minibuffer frame Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:47:17 +0100 Message-ID: <5815B395.9030905@gmx.at> References: <58123AD6.4070703@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477817308 29289 195.159.176.226 (30 Oct 2016 08:48:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 08:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 24803@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 30 09:48:24 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lmj-0005H1-1P for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:48:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57440 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lml-0005rl-Mb for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:48:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52429) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lmf-0005qY-5H for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:48:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lmc-0006pD-5C for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:48:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49814) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lmc-0006p8-1d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:48:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lmb-0002v6-MX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:48:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 08:48:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24803 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 24803-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24803.147781725411171 (code B ref 24803); Sun, 30 Oct 2016 08:48:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24803) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2016 08:47:34 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36980 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lmA-0002u7-Ht for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:47:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:54740) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c0lm9-0002tf-Dp for 24803@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:47:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([212.95.7.5]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MI9n0-1c2QjK0PB0-003wjP; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:47:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:1OocH9jjVK2n8CFWfVzFByK3v9yh2ot8Mcv42tMBswSkY8aSegb EsZow91dw2S0UAtDUyuUPMnWryZ61+tlR7Hqs8ISHFUHK5X3OiSY4vCGpSF4cElELUHnBfV Svl9uFMI5EI333giUane1aczI3hw1z4gmqlawFG4W5SiXdDH0/Nr7aSALpAwVrTR4zjwCHa y2PedftYmTdVokZmH1hTw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:51CfHBsxmGA=:JmwAfI7PjsT1NTO7A7rCD8 ZeoyfgCuPgRo9fCW0z7SmII82wHtxiedjTPrHUKvJkjFVGwsZ1pSi+zkcaFR3HJVy9JZfFkWE 8VDD3fsy/J3fx9UGyyMJYHImwMQreEioKsIFCPSbVZ4/njwcgG88GKVK7iGhtl3xNWTMalhVi vWMM1rkcRcpbrElo49niYt6gAg06O8NyytTPiBru6CzkciMBGLBwgO7hAGTEUQzM0DORYUj6J wUAlaBjZc+0FAtI2mDjlygfqKtBZSAJawNTjiYNigOjr2GffA30GVvwuLPFKAAgwKoni+W4kB 9u1FQ+0BRJcXGCMp9GgdMzYKoLQKd/CNKGEZqUrNhxsjgiZjtzU3s2thOTwy1ji3U6EWYMHZ9 gDQON9XfiZP9de9x0nwYAsNzlyNHKo3PEduiKQCeSCIJT3k7GMMN5K8VnWR0CCB3pCDhaGe/W iXLvwBIOTc60AgIR2jP7I1XKkznqMmMAcNHCUnn+IRXi2WOg/jsbh8OF8SiUnFFIzqXuy7M1z bui/QJKy3JXXCsSP+JGr4O0EVJ/8z99Bgy4mks+Zhs7PGvwvXLuGe0X9v7YyM4fah32OtsYMe /V5Niw3RzoP99djcZR2IoM5l4gWTCC7lEsxTV8umT+uSH3NAITHSDD8y4LXsB7bXwWZkfz/jq J+KHnSj01OasPbcAuwcET8IJR73G9pkSwVXid3WO7QnqET3VskGTto7FTze4+7KiyU94a0uKh L/ulwr4sihx9S1o2QrqMsW3bLbJOC7Hn2TkeFebrgcv+y1S73hKqKYb3M/MIReBc0FNmOiYo X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:125145 Archived-At: > Reverting the frame.c change seems to fix the problem. As expected. Please keep it this way for the moment. If we don't find a better solution, I'll do the revert on master. Currently, I'd be more interested if someone else sees the same or a similar problem. > BTW I also just noticed that the bogus (the one I get at the end of my= > recipe) focus is "mutual": > - when the mouse points at the minibuffer window, the focus is in the > *scratch* buffer. > - when the mouse points in the *scratch* window, the focus is in the > minibuffer! With emacs -Q and just =E2=80=98display-buffer-alist=E2=80=99 customized = and no minibuffer dialogue in process? Queer. >> Hmm... This seems to indicate that I do not remove the redirection wh= en >> exiting the minibuffer. Could you try to augment in read_minibuf_unw= ind >> >> if (minibuf_level =3D=3D 0) >> resize_mini_window (XWINDOW (window), 0); >> >> to something that for each frame redirects focus to itself? > > Still haven't found the time to try this, but I just want to mention > that until recently, the focus redirection was usually nil rather than= > "redirected to itself". Indeed you would have to set it to nil. And obviously my proposal is not a solution anyway since someone might want to redirect focus without any minibuffers being involved in the first place. > I'm not sure if there should be a difference between these two states,= > but I have the suspicion that not all the C code handles those two > states in the same way (then again, last time I looked at the > redirection code, I concluded that I just don't understand how it's > supposed to work, so maybe it's just my misunderstanding). I'm currently struggling with focus redirection in various contexts - for example, when redirecting focus from a parent to a child frame and back again. So far it's a lost battle :-( martin