From xemacs-m  Tue Jan 14 02:43:30 1997
Received: from isy (root@isy.liu.se [130.236.20.1])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id CAA11240 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 02:43:30 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ludde.isy.liu.se (ludde.isy.liu.se [130.236.24.29]) by isy (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA08829; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:43:29 +0100 (MET)
Received: by ludde.isy.liu.se (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA06581; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:41:41 +0100
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:41:41 +0100
Message-Id: <199701140841.JAA06581@ludde.isy.liu.se>
From: Anders Stenman <stenman@isy.liu.se>
To: turner@lanl.gov
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: automatic de-iconify in 20-b34 w/ byte-recompile-directory
In-Reply-To: <199701140628.XAA05868@branagh.lanl.gov>
References: <199701060128.UAA11198@spacely.icd.teradyne.com>
	<199701140419.XAA17368@spacely.icd.teradyne.com>
	<QQbyki29097.199701140512@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
	<m2vi90bxve.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199701140628.XAA05868@branagh.lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.94)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by xemacs.org id CAA11241

John Turner writes:
 > Steven L. Baur writes:
 > 
 >  > Much of the XEmacs frame code is broken in a virtual window manager
 >  > environment, and unfortunately not all of it can be disabled :-(.
 > 
 > That reminds me about something that annoys me when using the multiple
 > workspaces allowed by CDE.
 > 
 > As is probably common, I have different workspaces for different
 > machines I might be using.  Each typically has its own XEmacs going,
 > as well as a VM frame from my local XEmacs (I tell the VM frame to
 > "occupy all workspaces").
 > 
 > At the end of each day, I typically q(uit) VM.
 > 
 > Here's the problem.  If I happen to try to q(uit) VM while in a
 > workspace other than the local one, VM quits but the frame remains.
 > The first few times this happened, I thought something was wrong, so I
 > tried to delete the frame by hand, only to be told that it couldn't be
 > deleted since it was the only visible frame.  Well, yea, but there's a
 > frame in another workspace.
 > 
 > Anyway, this probably isn't a bug, but rather behavior I don't much
 > like.  I guess deleting the last frame would be undesirable, but is
 > there any way to improve the behavior wrt virtual workspaces?

I had this problem too (in 19.14 & CDE), but I discovered that setting the
variable 'allow-deletion-of-last-visible-frame' to t in some sense solves
the problem.

/Anders

-- 
______________________________________________________________
                Anders Stenman             
     |          Division of Automatic Control
    /|\         Dept. of EE, Linkping University
    \|/         S-581 83 Linkping, Sweden
    /|\         Phone:  +46 13 284079
   / | \        Email:  stenman@isy.liu.se

