Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:16:29 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > So Martin, I think other_visible_frames should be augmented for the
> > fact that when IS_DAEMON is non-zero, there's one frame that is always
> > there and does not constitute "other frames".
> 
> It seems more correct to fix the FRAME_VISIBLE_P test for that F1 frame.

I'm not sure.  In fact, I don't understand why that function even
tests frame visibility, or maybe I don't understand its contract.

> So this feature about smartly deleting frames is broken for some use
> cases.

I'm sure Martin will fix whatever needs fixing.  But bugs are not
necessarily a valid argument against intended behavior.