From xemacs-m  Sat May 31 21:10:58 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA17407
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sat, 31 May 1997 21:10:43 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id EAA05470; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 04:10:26 +0200 (MET DST)
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 20.3-b3: new tty frame selected too soon
References: <QQcrzc00937.199706010008@crystal.WonderWorks.COM> 	<kigraenp3xg.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<QQcrzh01829.199706010116@crystal.WonderWorks.COM> 	<kiglo4vp0t4.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <QQcrzj02290.199706010154@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
X-Shopping-List: 
   (1) Anaerobic swindlers
   (2) Fatuous preserves
   (3) Academic repentant log breath
   (4) Tenacious long-playing sand
   (5) Nuclear riots
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 01 Jun 1997 04:10:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: Kyle Jones's message of Sat, 31 May 1997 21:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <kigk9kfoyy5.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 38
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:

> You're fighting the system's design, I'm afraid.  The frames
> should all be considered visible, 

Why should they all be considered visible?  The word "visible" has a
determined meaning for the redisplay system.  By the current design of 
frame.el, the visible frames are all I'll ever want to select, and
that's obviously flawed.

Changing this is fairly easy by introducing a concept of
"selectability", which is not necessarily connected to visibility --
for example, TTY frames on the same console are selectable, even if
invisible.  Frames (X or TTY) on a console other than the selected
console are not selectable, even if visible.  Minibuffer-only frames
are normally not selectable.  Invisible X frames and iconified frames
may or may not be selectable.  Maybe one could even turn selectability
on and off for specific frames.

Do you see my point now?  I don't think I am fighting the system's
design.  The only needed change is an additional `frame-selectable-p'
function (which could even be in Lisp), and an addition to
`next-frame' to understand `selectable' argument.  It's trivial to
make `other-frame' use it.

Is there a flaw in this design that I can't spot, but it's obvious to
you?  Please, say so!  Is this much harder to implement than it looks?
Will I run away screaming or go crazy(er than already) once I try it?
Don't hold it, (wo)man.  Speak up! :-)

> and the display code should only repaint the selected one.

Huh?

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Idle RAM is the Devil's playground.

