Re: Freezing frameset-restore

[Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> The function returns the frames that it considered and what action it
> took with it.  It will not necessarily return an entry for each
> existing frame.

What is the gain? In most cases, it already has to consider every
frame, for several reasons, chief among them that it tries to match
the frameset id. The only cases that is not so is if you explicitly
pass a LIST to REUSE-FRAMES, or :none.

>> any case, I suspect that I strongly disagree. For example, you could
>> pass REUSE-FRAMES = :none, which wouldn't "consider" any existing
>> frame at all, and yet want to delete all previously-existing frames.
>
> I don't see why that would be problem.  The returned list simply
> wouldn't mention any of the existing frames, so if you want to delete
> those you'll have to call `frame-list'.

And check against the returned list (you don't want to delete the just
restored frames). Messier than have the full list in the first place.

frameset-restore is not a high-performance function to be called many
times per second, it's a user-level function, it operates in human
time. It already has to call frame-list, build and filter out frame
parameter lists, etc.

> Look at it not as "move stuff from frameset-restore to its caller" but
> as "split frameset-restore into two functions".

That's what I've done with frameset-restore-cleanup. I think the
current interface (in my last patch) is good and clear enough.

    J