[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Terminology in multi-tty primitives
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Terminology in multi-tty primitives |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:59:12 +0200 |
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:32:11 -0500
>
> - the user-level command make-frame-on-tty doesn't seem very useful and
> I'd be happy to remove it.
>
> - if we remove it, then we have to replace the only call to it from
> Elisp, which is of course in server.el.
> I guess server.el can't be used under MS-DOS, so the test you added
> wouldn't be needed there anyway, so server.el could just as well use
> (make-frame `((window-system) (tty . ,tty) (tty-type . ,type) .
> ,parameters))
> so the uglyness is not really crucial in make-frame.
server.el is indeed not used in the MS-DOS port, so removing
make-frame-on-tty will eliminate the need for that kludge. (I somehow
had an impression that make-frame-on-tty is used somewhere else, but I
see now that I was dreaming.)
However, are we really that sure users won't want to have an ability
to create frames on other tty's? By the same token, why do we have
make-frame-on-display? the same reason(s) would be arguments to retain
make-frame-on-tty.
> - still, when make-frame is called with an explicit `tty' argument but
> without an explicit `window-system' argument, the right thing to do is
> to give precedence to the `tty' and choose an appropriate
> window-system for it.
If we don't need this, why introduce it?