emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers!


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers!
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:45:19 +0200

> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:14:22 +0000
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> 
> > > @@ -416,11 +471,12 @@ read_minibuf (Lisp_Object map, Lisp_Object initial, 
> > > Lisp_Object prompt,
> > >      {
> > >        Lisp_Object str
> > >   = build_string ("Command attempted to use minibuffer while in 
> > > minibuffer");
> > > -      if (EQ (selected_window, minibuf_window))
> > > - Fsignal (Quser_error, (list1 (str)));
> > > +      if (!minibuf_follows_frame ()
> > > +          || EQ (selected_window, minibuf_window))
> > > +        Fsignal (Quser_error, (list1 (str)));
> 
> > I don't think I understand this change: what does
> > minibuffer-follows-selected-frame have to do with recursive minibuffer
> > usage?  They are two independent features.
> 
> They're not as independent as all that.  The existing logic appeared to
> say "if we're in the miniwindow, just abort the current command,
> otherwise abort all nested commands.".  Extending that logic to when we
> have several miniwindows, we'd (perhaps) get "if we're in _A_ miniwindow
> just abort the current command.".
> 
> Which, further extended, goes "if we're in ANY window, just abort the
> current command.".  I agree, this is an independent feature from the
> main one.  But it brings consistency (and, possibly, usability) to this
> abort facility.  I can put this back to more or less what it was.  But
> why do we abort the whole command stack when there's just a single
> error?

Sorry, you've lost me here.  The existing logic is: if we are in a
minibuffer with minibuf_level > 1, then we throw to top-level, either
by signaling a user-error or silently.  Your change introduced the
call to minibuf_follows_frame into this equation, and I just cannot
understand what business does it have here?  Recursive minibuffers
should be "verboten" regardless of whether the minibuffer follows the
selected frame or not.  What am I missing here?

> > > -  /* Empty out the minibuffers of all frames other than the one
> > > -     where we are going to display one now.
> > > -     Set them to point to ` *Minibuf-0*', which is always empty.  */
> > > -  empty_minibuf = get_minibuffer (0);
> > > -
> > > -  FOR_EACH_FRAME (dummy, frame)
> > > -    {
> > > -      Lisp_Object root_window = Fframe_root_window (frame);
> > > -      Lisp_Object mini_window = XWINDOW (root_window)->next;
> > > -
> > > -      if (! NILP (mini_window) && ! EQ (mini_window, minibuf_window)
> > > -   && !NILP (Fwindow_minibuffer_p (mini_window)))
> > > - /* Use set_window_buffer instead of Fset_window_buffer (see
> > > -    discussion of bug#11984, bug#12025, bug#12026).  */
> > > - set_window_buffer (mini_window, empty_minibuf, 0, 0);
> > > -    }
> 
> > Does this mean the minibuffers on other frames will now not be emptied?
> 
> Yes, indeed.  If minibuffer-follows-selected-frame, there'll only be a
> single mini-window, which we're about to write into, so there's no point
> emptying out a null set of other windows.

That's the intention, perhaps, but are we really 110% sure this will
happen?  And where's the alternative code which will make sure the
other minibuffers are cleared in this case?



reply via email to

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