From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:12:14 +0300 Message-ID: <83vcsxwp69.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4E6C80BF.2060002@gmx.at> <4E6DCB0A.4060605@gmx.at> <87mxeaar26.fsf@wanadoo.es> <4E6DFF55.3000708@gmx.at> <87ehzlnaxj.fsf@wanadoo.es> <4E6E1D4C.7030601@gmx.at> <87littrcyy.fsf@wanadoo.es> <831uvlyckf.fsf@gnu.org> <83zki9wx4u.fsf@gnu.org> <4E6E4EC7.8070901@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315854873 4800 80.91.229.12 (12 Sep 2011 19:14:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:14:33 +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 Sep 12 21:14:29 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R3Bxc-0000ik-O3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36190 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3Bxc-0002UI-8x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:14:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3BxZ-0002UC-7F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:14:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3BxX-00020C-PP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:14:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:52949) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3BxX-0001zu-IP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:14:23 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LRF00200BXTUZ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:12:13 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.9.62]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LRF002PBC0DBTF0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:12:13 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <4E6E4EC7.8070901@gmx.at> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:143947 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:26:15 +0200 > From: martin rudalics > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> Frames whose names are F1, F2, etc. are terminal frames. Is it > >> possible that the demonic Emacs doesn't delete the initial terminal > >> frame, like an otherwise "normal" interactive session would? > > > > Answering my own question: yes, that's what happens. > > Funny. I thought that > > When Emacs is > invoked with the `--daemon' option, it does not create any initial > frames, so `initial-window-system' is `nil'. This describes a different "initial frame", the one that's visible to the user. See below. > Does it create a frame afterwards? No. I was talking about the frame that is created and dumped by temacs. It is never actually displayed, just used through the initial part of the startup, and then deleted (except in a daemonic Emacs), when the "real" initial frame is created. > > So Martin, I think other_visible_frames should be augmented for the > > fact that when IS_DAEMON is non-zero, there's one frame that is always > > there and does not constitute "other frames". > > This would break `delete-frame' which apparently _should_ delete a frame > even if it's the last one in that case. ??? That special frame cannot possibly be deleted anyway, because it is never displayed. Are we talking about the same thing? > Is there a way to get IS_DAEMON in Elisp, Yes, it's called `daemonp'.