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 19:20:17 +0300 Message-ID: <83zki9wx4u.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315844433 25102 80.91.229.12 (12 Sep 2011 16:20:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:20:33 +0000 (UTC) To: rudalics@gmx.at, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 12 18:20:29 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 1R39FE-0004Wx-Cc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:20:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57875 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R39FD-0000w5-TA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:20:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52283) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R39FA-0000uW-Qp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:20:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R39F9-0000A4-2H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:20:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:37007) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R39F8-00009Z-LS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:20:22 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LRF001004138900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:20:16 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.9.62]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LRF00MLJ41RX8S0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:20:16 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <831uvlyckf.fsf@gnu.org> 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:143939 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:01:36 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > CC: rudalics@gmx.at, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > (# #) > > > > I have no idea what frame F1 is. The only displayed frame is > > `emacs@qcore', which is what `emacsclient -c -n' creates. > > 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. 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".