From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:16:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87d3f5r89e.fsf@wanadoo.es> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315847810 18705 80.91.229.12 (12 Sep 2011 17:16:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 12 19:16:41 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 1R3A7c-0003eH-4Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:16:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41342 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3A7b-0004DL-JA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:16:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:32902) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3A7Y-0004Cv-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:16:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3A7W-0003SW-Gb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:16:36 -0400 Original-Received: from impaqm3.telefonica.net ([213.4.138.19]:39396 helo=telefonica.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R3A7W-0003S6-0e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:16:34 -0400 Original-Received: from IMPmailhost3.adm.correo ([10.20.102.124]) by IMPaqm3.telefonica.net with bizsmtp id Xr0Z1h00V2h2L9m3PtGXMX; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:16:31 +0200 Original-Received: from qcore ([83.59.1.185]) by IMPmailhost3.adm.correo with BIZ IMP id XtGW1h00D3zVkuj1jtGWMl; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:16:31 +0200 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-original-sender: 981711563@telefonica.net In-Reply-To: <83zki9wx4u.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:20:17 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 213.4.138.19 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:143942 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > (# #) >> > >> > 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". It seems more correct to fix the FRAME_VISIBLE_P test for that F1 frame. OTOH: emacs -Q M-x server-start (from a terminal): emacsclient -c -nw (on the emacs' X frame): M-x delete-windows-on (select the currently displayed buffer) The graphical frame goes away. This is not correct, IMO. Another example: running emacs as a server as above, connect from a remote X server and create an emacs frame there. On one of the two machines, M-x delete-windows-on (choose the currently displayed buffer.) The frame on the other machine is deleted. So this feature about smartly deleting frames is broken for some use cases.