bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#61538: Iconifying a frame changes its title


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#61538: Iconifying a frame changes its title
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:51:38 +0200

> From: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoul.li>
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 20:36:11 +0100
> 
> Hello,
> 
> For the longest time I used "%b" as frame-title-format.  Now that I have
> changed it to something more complex, I noticed that it is not respected
> for iconified frames.
> 
>   (mapcar (lambda (f) (list (frame-visible-p f) (frame-parameter f 'name) f))
>           (frame-list))
> 
>   ((t "/home/jonas/.config/emacs/custom.el"
>       #<frame /home/jonas/.config/emacs/custom.el 0x7d386d8>)
>    (icon "init.el" #<frame init.el 0x1a8e850>))
> 
> You might be wondering how I even noticed this.
> 
> I use a tiling window manager, i3wm.  Usually I arrange windows in
> multiple columns, where each column "holds" multiple windows, but
> displays only one of them at a time.  At the top of such a column the
> titles of all the window that it holds is displayed, followed by the one
> window that is actually being displayed.  So while the other windows are
> not displayed, their title is still displayed.  i3wm iconifies the
> windows that are not being displayed.
> 
> Unfortunately that means that Emacs changes the visible titles of the
> iconified frames.  So, given "%f" as frame-title-format, I see, e.g.:
> 
>   [init.el                              ]   # title of an iconified window
>   [/home/jonas/.config/emacs/custom.el  ]   # title of the displayed window
>   |(custom-set-variables                |   # the column's displayed window
>   |  ...)                               |
> 
> instead of
> 
>   [/home/jonas/.config/emacs/init.el    ]
>   [/home/jonas/.config/emacs/custom.el  ]
>   |(custom-set-variables                |
>   |  ...)                               |
> 
> Is there a knob, that I am not aware of, to control this?
> If not, please consider adding one.

Isn't this a duplicate of bug#61496, especially the last part of its
discussion?





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]