Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:26:15 +0200
> From: martin rudalics <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> 
>  >> Frames whose names are F1, F2, etc. are terminal frames.  Is it
>  >> possible that the demonic Emacs doesn't delete the initial terminal
>  >> frame, like an otherwise "normal" interactive session would?
>  >
>  > Answering my own question: yes, that's what happens.
> 
> Funny.  I thought that
> 
>       When Emacs is
>       invoked with the `--daemon' option, it does not create any initial
>       frames, so `initial-window-system' is `nil'.

This describes a different "initial frame", the one that's visible to
the user.  See below.

> Does it create a frame afterwards?

No.  I was talking about the frame that is created and dumped by
temacs.  It is never actually displayed, just used through the initial
part of the startup, and then deleted (except in a daemonic Emacs),
when the "real" initial frame is created.

>  > 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".
> 
> This would break `delete-frame' which apparently _should_ delete a frame
> even if it's the last one in that case.

??? That special frame cannot possibly be deleted anyway, because it
is never displayed.  Are we talking about the same thing?

> Is there a way to get IS_DAEMON in Elisp,

Yes, it's called `daemonp'.