From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Backtrace printing in batch mode ignores all customizations Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:54:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83d0bk4nbr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h80y59l6.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2u84spu.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="58339"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: pogonyshev@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 15 18:55:28 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1irmt5-000F0R-T3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:55:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58276 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1irmt4-0002Yr-QG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:55:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48952) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1irmsF-0001rq-H5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:54:36 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40955) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1irmsF-0008Je-6A; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:54:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1553 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1irmsE-0002Le-He; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:54:34 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:34:44 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:244281 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: pogonyshev@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:34:44 -0500 > > > I didn't say it was wrong, I said it wasn't clean enough, IMO. We > > know exactly where in the startup process the interactive frame > > becomes available: after the call to frame-initialize. Why wouldn't > > it be right to set a flag there which debug.el could test, instead of > > testing the above? > > If for some reason an interactive terminal is created but the > initial_terminal is still used (and is still the currently selected > terminal) How can this happen? The code which creates the interactive terminal immediately proceeds to delete the initial one. > Also, what about an emacs-daemon in which an interactive frame has been > created in the past but has been deleted since? What does the code do now in the daemon? That was one of the questions I asked before. Anyway, with the variable I propose, we can reset it again (e.g., in server.el) once there's no interactive frames. But I don't want to argue about this any further, it doesn't seem to be worth our time.