Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 	$ emacsclient
>> 		==> X frame
> 
> There are *many* different ways to create new frames (one per "session",
> one per file, reuse old ones or not, ...).  I hope you got it right ;-)

I hope so as well, but there is always room for tweaking the defaults if
I happened to choose something wrong.

I find that the current default settings fit me like a glove, but that's
no big wonder. :-)  I'm very interested in what others think about the
behaviour of emacsclient, and if there is anything that doesn't work for
them as well as it could.

> Maybe it's OK.  Note that when I added the --display argument, I was
> careful to not automatically use the $DISPLAY envvar, in order to preserve
> backward compatibility, so users have to say --display "$DISPLAY" if they
> want it.

Emacsclient can now consistently open a frame even if X is not
available, so I would argue existing users will find the new default
easier to use as well.  If they do object, but only then, should we
consider reverting the default to the old behaviour.  I personally find
the new emacsclient is really rather more pleasant to use than the old
one.

I wouldn't like to hide the new feature set because we're afraid
somebody somewhere might find it offensive, but if people did object,
then I'd easily accept such a decision.

-- 
Karoly