From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `q' in debugger with a dedicated *Backtrace* window Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:29:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1174188580 28040 80.91.229.12 (18 Mar 2007 03:29:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:29:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 18 04:29:38 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HSm5R-0006iL-J9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Mar 2007 04:29:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HSm6k-0000Q1-Ds for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:30:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HSm6h-0000Pw-8j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:30:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HSm6e-0000Pj-TR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:30:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HSm6e-0000Pg-OM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:30:52 -0500 Original-Received: from tomts5.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.25] helo=tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HSm5M-00017a-0A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:29:32 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home ([70.55.81.12]) by tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20070318032931.IXCZ1671.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@ceviche.home> for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:29:31 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B10F5B4DC9; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:29:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sat\, 17 Mar 2007 19\:42\:21 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Solaris 8 (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:68041 Archived-At: > (with-current-buffer debugger-buffer > (erase-buffer) > (fundamental-mode) > (with-selected-window (get-buffer-window debugger-buffer 0) > (when (and (window-dedicated-p (selected-window)) > (not debugger-will-be-back)) > ;; If the window is not dedicated, burying the buffer > ;; will mean that the frame created for it is left > ;; around showing some random buffer, and next time we > ;; pop to the debugger buffer we'll create yet > ;; another frame. > ;; If debugger-will-be-back is non-nil, the frame > ;; would need to be de-iconified anyway immediately > ;; after when we re-enter the debugger, so iconifying it > ;; here would cause flashing. > ;; Use quit-window rather than bury-buffer to quieten > ;; Drew Adams. --Stef > (quit-window)))) > To speak to the comment about Drew Adams: Before this was changed to > quit-window, things were even worse - iconifying (with the flashing > mentioned) and bury-buffer were tried. Multiple debugger frames were > created, reproducing like rabbits. AFAIK, 90% of the flashing problem was fixed by checking debugger-will-be-back. The 10% remaining is only for the case where a breakpoint is in the middle of a loop. As for reproducing like rabbits, this was before the (window-dedicated-p (selected-window)) check (AFAIK, again), so it's been fixed 100%. So if I understand correctly you're opposed to bury-buffer because in some cases it causes flashing. I don't know about you, but I find flashing *much* less problematic than deletion/recreation of a frame. You seem to have forgotten the main reason why you didn't want bury-buffer: you didn't want a iconified frame left around. I guess I should just revert to bury-buffer to add an option debugger-for-drew-adams. This way you'll stop whining and I'll get the saner behavior. > quit-window is a pain That's what I told you when you kept begging for it. Stefan