Re: multi-tty branch created

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> For the sake of transparent backward compatibility, I'd make --current-frame
>> the default,  and use -nw as an argument to force the use of the new
>> multi-tty feature.  This way you only get the new feature when you ask
>> for it.  I normally prefer using an X11 frame over a tty frame, so I'd only
>> want to use -nw in those cases where it matters (typically when the
>> bandwidth is limited).

> You assume that emacsclient now opens a tty frame even if X is
> available.  That's not the case.  Emacsclient works like Emacs: it
> prefers X, and falls back to the tty only if X is unavailable or the
> user forces opening a tty frame by supplying "-t" (the emacsclient
> equivalent to "-nw").

> 	$ 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 ;-)

> 	$ emacsclient -t
> 		==> tty frame
> 	$ emacsclient -c
> 		==> no new frame

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.

My experience with Emacs is that when introducing a new feature, any minor
backward incompatibility will slow down adoption, so it's easier to just let
new features disabled by default.  See the comment-style variable for
another example ;-)

> I agree that "-t" should be renamed "-nw"; in fact this idea is even in
> the README file.  However, multi-character short options are a pain to
> implement.  I'd prefer if someone with more getopt experience would do
> it instead. :-)

I see.  Yes, it's a problem with the current argument scheme, indeed.


        Stefan