RE: How to restore the layout?

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > I hope, at least, that users will be able to use Desktop without the
> > frame/window restoration.
> 
> (setq desktop-restore-frames nil)
> 
> Or, if I we decide to turn it into a pseudo-minor mode, like
> desktop-save-mode, (desktop-restore-frames -1).
> 
> > And I hope they will be able to restore
> > windows & frames without necessarily restoring all the other stuff
> > that Desktop can handle.
> 
> As discussed previously, that's a worthwhile goal, but not one I'm
> pursuing right now.

I'm not familiar with the code, but a priori it feels like that should
be doable and done at the outset.  Is there some reason it would be hard
to stop Desktop from saving (or restoring) the other stuff?  I'm not
asking you to go into detail here, just wondering what the difficulty is
in general terms.  Is the desktop.el code written in such a way that that
would be messy to do?

> > But you're not necessarily acting on or interacting with a single buffer
> > or frame, in general.
> 
> *In general*, yes, I do. If not a single buffer, at least a single
> window, two at most, more than 99% of the time. And definitely a
> single frame.

I didn't mean you, personally.  If someone (even you) interacts with only
one or two frames 99% of the time then there is not much case to be
made, from my point of view, for them to use a standalone minibuffer frame.

IOW, why argue that people with standalone minibuffer frames lose locality
if the supporting case is a single frame scenario?  Sounds a bit like
saying that a teaspoon is not the best pot for boiling lots of water.

> Yes, of course. At this point, I'm just explaining why do I think that
> it isn't a good setup *for me*.

OK.  But I thought we were discussing the "locality" argument you raised
generally.

Anyway, please keep up the good work, and bon courage !