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: GUI vs TTY when saving & restoring framesets Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 22:03:57 +0200 Message-ID: <83inp650b6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170122132727.GA12823@acm> <831svv5a4l.fsf@gnu.org> <20170122180010.GB12823@acm> <83o9yz3qtw.fsf@gnu.org> <20170122185537.GC12823@acm> <83k29m52rc.fsf@gnu.org> <20170122193841.GD12823@acm> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1485115495 16967 195.159.176.226 (22 Jan 2017 20:04:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 22 21:04:50 2017 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 1cVONd-00040i-DB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:04:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37549 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVONi-00031q-AF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:04:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48661) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVOMx-00031k-VT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:04:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVOMu-0006VO-1L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:04:07 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44385) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVOMt-0006VK-Uj; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:04:03 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4032 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cVOMs-00034p-MZ; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:04:03 -0500 In-reply-to: <20170122193841.GD12823@acm> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:38:41 +0000) 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:211554 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:38:41 +0000 > Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > I always have several frames in my sessions, each one with its buffer, > > and when I restore the sessions, each frame comes up with the same > > buffer it had when I shut down Emacs, no complicated frame-walking > > dance necessary, neither before shutting down Emacs nor after > > restarting it. > > Something similar happens when I use the defaults. But the buffers come > up in the "wrong" frames (i.e. associated with a different key), > making it not useful for me. Then perhaps the problem is that the frame names are jumbled after restoring them, something that "normal" usage will never reveal, as most people don't care about the internal numbering of frames, and I don't think there was a requirement to keep them when restoring.