From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tassilo Horn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Usage examples of dedicated windows and popup frames? Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:00:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87iprat9by.fsf@fastmail.fm> References: <871uy0n9ch.fsf@member.fsf.org> <8762nc8xqe.fsf@member.fsf.org> <4E185100.2050100@gmx.at> <87vcvb9xnb.fsf@member.fsf.org> <4E196A26.3020407@gmx.at> <87ipra8of6.fsf@member.fsf.org> <4E19C59E.9000705@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310313888 12982 80.91.229.12 (10 Jul 2011 16:04:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:04:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 10 18:04:44 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 1QfwUr-0001vU-Jg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:04:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54689 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfwUq-0005om-8J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:04:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfwQT-0004lh-Id for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:00:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfwQQ-0007lN-EA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:00:09 -0400 Original-Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:33935) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfwQQ-0007jg-4r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:00:06 -0400 Original-Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEE720CB4; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from frontend2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:00:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=i3M26/oawrMmLk9C0xyaiiO7XYE=; b=b2Huyzq/ywX6N88b6CKDdKVZTD8s5nJzA6t3K4H4V5rVlyA0l1sX9NmThbR4OtrZkQq6kQEV5+N7SM0OfcH5idAP9+ceSxTHbfvUvgXuODT8RCXxYg7wKGRg0+/nAKa+MyqxEXm8OTsxWoZMFL3dggYGtIPXN3WtY3CO3Djcjks= X-Sasl-enc: kkEmTYoNEZv4TwBg0u1msE+J7dhf+s7M58k+q2oaxzFY 1310313603 Original-Received: from thinkpad (77-23-199-184-dynip.superkabel.de [77.23.199.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06F00441FEC; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:00:02 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 66.111.4.29 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:141910 Archived-At: martin rudalics writes: >> However, `other-frame' raises and selects correctly. > > Does `pop-to-buffer-other-frame' raise and select correctly when the > buffer argument is already shown on an iconified frame? Yes, it does. >>> Maybe we could make the *Completions* frame (optionally) invisible >>> instead of iconfying it? >> >> What's "invisible" in this respect? (In any case, I'd try it out.) > > Hmm, invisible is invisible, see section 28.10 of the Elisp manual. > That is, we could make the frame optionally invisible and make it > visible again when it's needed. For example, when I evaluate the > following three forms step by step > > (setq my-frame (make-frame)) > (make-frame-invisible my-frame) > (make-frame-visible my-frame) > > my-frame is visible and has input focus after the third step. Yes, that's nice. I think that's better as a default action for frames showing completion, because it's less distracting if iconification is animated, and it doesn't clutter the window manager switcher with temporary frames you usually don't want to switch to anyway. > If I do > > (let ((frame (selected-frame))) > (make-frame-visible my-frame) > (raise-frame frame)) > > as third step, the original frame is in the foreground, Yes, here, too. > and if I do > > (let ((frame (selected-frame))) > (make-frame-visible my-frame) > (redirect-frame-focus my-frame frame)) > > as third step, my-frame is risen but typing input goes to the original > frame. After evaluating that form, my emacs froze so that I had to kill it. C-g didn't work anymore. However, I cannot reproduce that with emacs -Q... Bye, Tassilo