From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jambunathan K Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Difference between M-x and call-interactively Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:54:57 +0530 Message-ID: <87ipabamvq.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87d30m9u0f.fsf@gmail.com> <507C0704.1000805@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1350307414 9845 80.91.229.3 (15 Oct 2012 13:23:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:23:34 +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 Oct 15 15:23:41 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TNkdw-0000lC-LU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:23:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51100 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TNkdp-0005lQ-Pn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:23:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43637) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TNkdi-0005lK-Sr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:23:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TNkdc-0002l9-O0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:23:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:54173) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TNkdc-0002jJ-Hp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:23:20 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fa10so5382271pad.0 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:23:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=g1VdlnOwhJZN9XeEcKx+sb7g/s52rCCb3FTQF/KDoug=; b=KjuLomhESgKIST6Ju1V62Xz/lx2wCrXMow05DriR26bG/DSXrg9jPSNB9w1OF7ZXsr 9xxCiABvKTRBJGKM9lEAnvCKSyPH16DBqC2Ijjow4Y2w/T4FOfxLhuxi76DHe4+qfPLL zsIIV4hqH07V3DpxlDFCQwEJj1THkiBe6NBSSArL9YSUiebAhQggB4N1zOOXQPlW/uUU CzFY2aifvLWJkFYtFvrOnRqtPFYdocF+Z4H8Iq/g5qoMH7vtnnoOMM9s18nfjwMs3Yrs nwcxjLyA+1yPPUEM3+QGy4SDb1XIXYZmnMu0XY9KCbKacUuK6eImBpBjirBdpjkA4FP4 ib3g== Original-Received: by 10.68.136.98 with SMTP id pz2mr15735767pbb.2.1350307399462; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.242.249.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr4sm9060958pbc.76.2012.10.15.06.23.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:23:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <507C0704.1000805@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:52:20 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.220.41 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:154349 Archived-At: martin rudalics writes: >> (IIRC, I have seen this on Windows XP. I don't have the >> Windows machine with me now, so I can't verify.) >> >> I was trying to narrow this issue further and ended up observing >> whatever the subject claims. >> >> 1. C-x C-f some-file >> 2. C-x C-w some-file-1 >> 3. Make some random changes some-file-1 >> 4. M-x ediff-buffers RET (some-file and some-file-1). Press n in >> control panel. I note that the focus stays within the control panel. >> >> Now instead of step 4 above, if I C-x C-e below form in scratch buffer >> >> (call-interactively 'ediff-buffers) >> >> I see that the focus shifts away from the control panel. >> >> In summary, M-x ediff-buffers gives correct behaviour. But C-x C-e of >> the interactive call yields buggy behaviour. >> >> Any ideas on what could cause this behaviour? > > Unreproducible here on Windows XP. I think my memory is at fault. I was thinking that the difference between call-interactively and M-x could hold the magic key to resolving this issue. If someone gives me a handle on how to go about debugging this issue, I can take a shot at it (for it's own sake). > martin