[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GUI vs TTY when saving & restoring framesets

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: GUI vs TTY when saving & restoring framesets
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:44:09 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)

Hello, Eli.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 22:03:57 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:38:41 +0000
> > Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>

> > > I always have several frames in my sessions, each one with its buffer,
> > > and when I restore the sessions, each frame comes up with the same
> > > buffer it had when I shut down Emacs, no complicated frame-walking
> > > dance necessary, neither before shutting down Emacs nor after
> > > restarting it.

> > Something similar happens when I use the defaults.  But the buffers come
> > up in the "wrong" frames (i.e. associated with a different <fn> key),
> > making it not useful for me.

> Then perhaps the problem is that the frame names are jumbled after
> restoring them, something that "normal" usage will never reveal, as
> most people don't care about the internal numbering of frames, and I
> don't think there was a requirement to keep them when restoring.

The order of the frames returned by frame-list is not defined in its doc
string or the Elisp manual.  Maybe it should be.  It appears to be in
reverse order of creation, presumably because the frame creation
routine simply pushes each new frame onto the front of a list.

Maybe inserting a judicious nreverse into the frame group code would get
me part of what I want.

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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