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: About the 'minibuffer' frame parameter Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 18:34:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83popji89w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <579E3F9E.8020200@gmx.at> <83h9azl4s1.fsf@gnu.org> <57A4C0DE.3060506@gmx.at> <837fbvkofs.fsf@gnu.org> <57A5AF03.30807@gmx.at> <8360rck7kd.fsf@gnu.org> <57A84256.8030706@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1470674275 26013 195.159.176.226 (8 Aug 2016 16:37:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 16:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 08 18:37:52 2016 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 1bWnYi-0005cK-6Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 18:37:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58597 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWnYf-0006VG-4U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 12:37:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51719) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWmaM-0003vN-Ap for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:35:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWmaG-0005vT-Tt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:35:25 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34302) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWmaG-0005vP-QY; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:35:20 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4665 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bWmaE-0000w7-Dy; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:35:20 -0400 In-reply-to: <57A84256.8030706@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Mon, 08 Aug 2016 10:27:02 +0200) 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:206489 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 10:27:02 +0200 > From: martin rudalics > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > In general, I prefer to > > report the actual values whenever possible, especially when we have no > > reason to hide the value from Lisp applications. > > Modulo the fact that, as I mentioned above, some application might want > to use (not (frame-parameter frame 'minibuffer)) to check whether it is > allowed to change the minibuffer window of an arbitrary frame. > > >> As mentioned before, removing the special treatment of the 'minibuffer' > >> parameter in ‘frame-parameters’ would imply that Elisp code relying on > >> the values we report currently might be broken in the future. > > > > And my suggestion to that was to fix that code, wherever we find it. > > frameset.el already fixes the code internally so we would have to revert > those fixes. That's hairy. And I don't know how many times anyone else > already has invented a workaround for all these idiosyncrasies. So what is your suggestion for the course of actions?