From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about =?utf-8?Q?=C3=BCarent-frame?= changes Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 11:20:39 +0300 Message-ID: <86zfo4836w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <9bc2af0a-d3c1-4ba6-a350-af6e2b85695d@gmx.at> <86ikut9bup.fsf@gnu.org> <86h6ac9r4r.fsf@gnu.org> <305d3b43-9963-46c4-8a58-33dd87dd3c99@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9535"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 19 10:21:52 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1srCQC-0002Iz-0c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:21:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1srCP9-0008Dw-Ko; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 04:20:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1srCP5-0008Dc-JS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 04:20:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1srCP4-0006jQ-GR; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 04:20:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=OityC1zGVrgn8ews3m9HtdrWFm1fLmsdCn5rE34CxAs=; b=me6jqq6/vfFH5nUwrqWV u3hUveaB6z96Bv1/+jS0mH5S4eNL/s7gU5jVCq/H6uLFzKsUZ98qxGSBQ3Ur9n2QUr2eY3qJjpewQ 8HxuRO+oen3g3zwu/k0ZVlIBnfXfZOjJR0RUdE00/f3ezqUC3GAI1QOGyM2zaN3rbTzS7bw/6M1ge cJycuXDFby3/CRBynX138v+jK7f0fnEsDD9S4cYIxqsbDvv9PDptQURef8UAJ3Xvhb5mszcNR2omj jJrZd7XmRy3nZLoku1ZP0fLt0fszyYCdQmrxBYQWVdQmo3brG75QxvTNXtfk+9CwXHN2786sg0Hfh 5nPCsCPoD6IbCA==; In-Reply-To: <305d3b43-9963-46c4-8a58-33dd87dd3c99@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:10:11 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:323760 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:10:11 +0200 > Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: martin rudalics > > > sounds not very useful to me on a TTY, because switching frames on a > > TTY will make the child frame invisible anyway. And why would I want > > to see a child of frame F1 when I display only frame F2? > > Because the calling code may reparent the child frame from F1 to F2 > whenever the user switches from frame F1 to frame F2. At least Po Lu > said that applications do such reparenting. Isn't that the same as simply showing the child frame even though its parent frame is obscured? And I'd need to hear more details about what the application wants to achieve by such reparenting, to understand the issue. > > So reparenting seems almost pointless on a TTY. > > If the application asks for it, we'd have to decide what to do. Clone > the child frame in some way, for example, so that while there are two > physical child frames - one for F1 and one for F2 - the application sees > only one. What do those applications do now on TTY displays, when child frames are not available at all? We should keep the current situation in mind when assessing the potential damage of not supporting reparenting. Assessing that from the POV of what is available on GUI displays skews the perspective. And once again: if implementing reparenting is not hard, I'm not objected to having it. All I'm saying is that it sounds like not having that on TTYs will not be a huge loss, and the feature will be useful enough even without that -- if implementing that is hard.