From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-26.0.91: switch-to-buffer-other-window runs too slowly (about 0.1s) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:41:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83efk6g93z.fsf@gnu.org> <544b8346-bda9-45eb-9573-1d51d9f768b2@Spark> <83bmfag8gu.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ie24z1.fsf@gmail.com> <87sh8m23tc.fsf@gmail.com> <87k1ty22p1.fsf@gmail.com> <837epyg30w.fsf@gnu.org> <83370mg0qj.fsf@gnu.org> <5AB94021.8080700@gmx.at> <83o9jadyn5.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522122033 21168 195.159.176.226 (27 Mar 2018 03:40:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:40:33 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 27 05:40:29 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f0fTI-0005QN-Ap for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:40:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60185 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0fVL-0001rq-OL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:42:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39631) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0fUn-0001rS-08 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:42:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0fUj-00066R-PF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:42:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=50957 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0fUj-00064x-HE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:41:57 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f0fSc-0004i0-4o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:39:46 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 21 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:CqHiwWwsfbhUFKuKGwKZKUzAKIg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:224091 Archived-At: >> IOW I think that in window--maybe-raise-frame >> >> ;; Assume the selected frame is already visible enough. >> (eq frame (selected-frame)) >> >> should apply not just to raise-frame but also to make-frame-visible. > > Is it impossible to make , say, iconified frame the selected one? No, it's very much possible and easy, but if we're in such a situation before display-buffer is called (i.e. it was not considered a problem before we called display-buffer), why should we assume that display-buffer should change it? This reasoning is currently applied to raise-frame and I don't see why we should use a different reasoning for make-frame-visible (after all, a frame buried under other frames is just as invisible as an iconified frame). Stefan