From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-26.0.91: switch-to-buffer-other-window runs too slowly (about 0.1s) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:58:23 +0300 Message-ID: <83h8ozdzrk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83efk6g93z.fsf@gnu.org> <544b8346-bda9-45eb-9573-1d51d9f768b2@Spark> <83bmfag8gu.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ie24z1.fsf@gmail.com> <87sh8m23tc.fsf@gmail.com> <87k1ty22p1.fsf@gmail.com> <837epyg30w.fsf@gnu.org> <83370mg0qj.fsf@gnu.org> <5AB94021.8080700@gmx.at> <83o9jadyn5.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522313812 11830 195.159.176.226 (29 Mar 2018 08:56:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 08:56:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 29 10:56:48 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1f1TMT-0002uA-KV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 10:56:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59816 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f1TOV-0004uD-Jz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 04:58:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58915) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f1TOO-0004tm-KN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 04:58:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f1TOJ-000174-QJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 04:58:44 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37566) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f1TOJ-000170-MT; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 04:58:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1827 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1f1TOI-0003xm-Vj; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 04:58:39 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:41:47 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:224142 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:41:47 -0400 > > >> IOW I think that in window--maybe-raise-frame > >> > >> ;; Assume the selected frame is already visible enough. > >> (eq frame (selected-frame)) > >> > >> should apply not just to raise-frame but also to make-frame-visible. > > > > Is it impossible to make , say, iconified frame the selected one? > > No, it's very much possible and easy, but if we're in such a situation > before display-buffer is called (i.e. it was not considered a problem > before we called display-buffer), why should we assume that > display-buffer should change it? Presumably, the result of display-buffer should be... ahem... to display the buffer, right? > This reasoning is currently applied to raise-frame and I don't see why > we should use a different reasoning for make-frame-visible (after all, > a frame buried under other frames is just as invisible as an iconified > frame). raise-frame isn't about frame's visibility, it's about the z-order. It is quite possible, and even probable, that a frame be at least partially visible without being on top. So yes, raise-frame _is_ different, and I don't think the same reasoning should be applied to the frame's visibility.