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#25511: 26.0.50; modify-frame-parameters modifies undesignated parameter? Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 08:38:26 +0200 Message-ID: <59364DE2.2010501@gmx.at> References: <5885B8D7.4040301@gmx.at> <5885DABE.9000408@gmx.at> <58870656.2090402@gmx.at> <58872061.1050900@gmx.at> <87zidmy4ly.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <59355E51.8090804@gmx.at> <87o9u2x9ww.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> 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 1496731154 9107 195.159.176.226 (6 Jun 2017 06:39:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 06:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 25511@debbugs.gnu.org, Katsumi Yamaoka To: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 06 08:39:09 2017 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 1dI88y-000299-Vu for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 08:39:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36453 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dI894-0007A1-AA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 02:39:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60231) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dI88y-00079t-CB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 02:39:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dI88s-0003V6-JF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 02:39:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55748) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dI88s-0003UG-FR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 02:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dI88s-0007Hp-6D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 02:39:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 06:39:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25511 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 25511-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25511.149673113727998 (code B ref 25511); Tue, 06 Jun 2017 06:39:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25511) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jun 2017 06:38:57 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58425 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dI88n-0007HW-8b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 02:38:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:61622) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dI88l-0007HJ-Mg for 25511@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 02:38:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([46.125.249.45]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M8edX-1e4L2e0aTz-00wAzW; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 08:38:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87o9u2x9ww.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:a9EDRxd2zgvotgopuUGEyLF0d0TU3DrZ6+S+EJMTi+MWyg+2wRE 0XptbWRvwbTG37ZFqZRvuc49ECnpyw0Oy7xKUaLT7m5cOyLtbPPunF5w9zrdg+B68vzJ8zw hKaXsVDrrRLqP2gVIvIWpDcvHTHsnr2xhXc3JgYFG5ZB45LHEjYt8DDY3I8PEp9R1y46paI U1IA9eiJYFFmc3P8geUJQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:1JlYmZxVIdQ=:PtU/vHgYNXYFvhJpiJGXJo CD6UVGBCs5DKrsdFMBBIG398oI8GYbNpmgLYNoFMeWqfcZX+GnjvHQDUZfqLNXpLiRikAEer0 d0BkNPTg7uRBJ+iqLckL9eNiCpsYS6l91SYumaQLxChWlJCRPYxclpDIJ8tOcUZc7x0jYpe+H S+U0MWj3B8M3wBYMuYejKlSvtKTF2FAg10V2L0n9hGt2kBXam8dLkmnQ5MmvjSqfdZab6G/vA 7lwwHvQTMg3pQn28hJAFPdiJ5HL77JDqluok0R5y/ucLw1C8nHn3hKq6O8r//Q5pmfxZ3/FBi Tissc4vIgOEmMFFe4iFG/x5yulC6PcAyublpwx5/7ZwFlFaDD4hFasXM4U4UfUUbO6ZxKoKaE 5r/QCJ+cNRJYpZnINBEarO4cTqEIjVUqcCheoMBWqCCM22R/Z4AGUmzcwSr/LQBobL4HP/8nF /MrZwF1E5S2g11QwyXdrP62gO1CVjlmc/oSgckMrGTz59aVLMY9wXLuCkF8vC0/Aqy/2NdcB1 /AFbY6iaqyIDUt4ZShrFD49FegrL2fX3b5WdGoZD6ecjPpB1RPWoldOFTX3ZUen0gMVDgXLE8 l12uza7/44DFayxr/RpIqi+XXnmwyljgSzcIEQQj7AA+LrZyVyohuMgM9mYRZmawpmLj7hBry lZo6DJkXX8tc1EgALh0EHYKrzEIAPa2oqGE9Vms3RQImvUsB/XlKVTyqJmCbGJEwck24pieii 4wY1Bak0kZwuZuImulhTS4vYuOk0U6lir+QdlOwodzpMun2CftAtV2sqQNbW+le2fF5OsAj2 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:133338 Archived-At: >>> Is there something more to do with this bug? >> >> Is there something more to do with bug#25521? > > Just the question of whether we should add back some delay after frame= > creation, the original problem there is easily fixed by changing the > user code. I gather from your question that it's the same for this bu= g? Yes. Problems in this area have existed for a long time. Practically all of them result from code using =E2=80=98make-frame=E2=80=99 followed = by code that immediately tries to read or modify properties of the frame to create. For example, Bug#25511 has (let ((frame (make-frame))) (modify-frame-parameters frame ... while Bug#25521 has (make-frame '((name . "foo") ... (select-frame-by-name "foo") and, for example, Bug#25943 has (let ((simple-frame (make-frame `((name . "Simple Frame") ... (unwind-protect (while (progn (set-frame-size simple-frame ... IIRC there were more similar reports. BTW Bug#25943 was reported for an Emacs 25.1 GTK build hence before you removed the delay to fix Bug#24091.= We could introduce some customizable delay and, whenever a bug in this area is reported, tell people to increase that delay. If the bug does not disappear after the delay has gotten pretty large, we have a more nasty problem. Otherwise, we have perfidiously shifted responsibility to the user. martin