From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Welsh Duggan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers! Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:17:59 -0400 Message-ID: <871rc88oqw.fsf@md5i.com> References: <83mtuze31r.fsf@gnu.org> <838s6jdthq.fsf@gnu.org> <83im5mcd7i.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7l6t2gg.fsf@miha-pc> <83mtuwbxlh.fsf@gnu.org> <83blbcbji1.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25451"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 21 17:20:27 2021 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 1lO0oV-0006XG-1S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:20:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41114 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lO0oU-0001i3-0K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:20:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46956) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lO0mG-00017x-3B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:18:08 -0400 Original-Received: from md5i.com ([75.151.244.229]:53262) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lO0mE-0001LL-6x; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:18:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=md5i.com; s=dkim; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References: Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=JHdYLf5jV9N56xXyeyc3JL3lNBUchA821YSawOCNXTo=; b=Gz5H1R62Cm2j0b7wiU9MnATPhB sIm7rWlo+j2iByLtZbLQUZbF5pJPaXyyJGHXFaB+DyuWR8M+wR1u0jVRt5Bf4bI31lufWh7dZtRxU z10rEHMA95bm5DhlbLzDHED8E; Original-Received: from abode.md5i.com ([192.168.177.1] helo=miko) by md5i.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lO0m8-002whb-JX; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:18:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83blbcbji1.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:43:02 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=75.151.244.229; envelope-from=mwd@md5i.com; helo=md5i.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:266713 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> The problem I'm trying to solve here is to understand what happens when >> emacsclient opens a frame on a different terminal from where emacs >> --daemon was started, when there are active minibuffers on the original >> terminal. What would be nice would be for these minibuffers to be moved >> onto the new frame (when minibuffer-follows-selected-frame is t) or left >> on the other non-initial frame (otherwise). It appears, from Miha's >> observation yesterday, that any active minibuffers would get aborted in >> this case, to prevent the old frame blocking the new one. > > And what's wrong with aborting the active minibuffer in this case? > isn't that what the user wants? I see two use cases here. 1) I've purposefully killed that last active frame. In this case any remaining open minibuffers are probably a mistake. 2) My connection to a remote machine went down, taking my last frame with it. I reconnect and I might want my minibuffer state back. I'm personally of the opinion that just aborting the minibuffers is good enough. Minibuffers should not generally be long-lived with state anyway. Under almost all circumstances, I believe any lost minibuffer state should be recoverable manually. -- Michael Welsh Duggan (md5i@md5i.com)