Hi, Martin,

These are the two options on the table?

(let ((frame-inhibit-make-frame-hidden-buffer-check t))
  (with-current-buffer " *string-pixel-width*"
    (make-frame)))
;; could also do this if users want the behavior all the time
(setq frame-inhibit-make-frame-hidden-buffer-check t)

(with-current-buffer " *string-pixel-width*"
  (setq-local frame-inhibit-make-frame-hidden-buffer-check t)
  (make-frame)
  (kill-local-variable 'frame-inhibit-make-frame-hidden-buffer-check))

I prefer the former over the latter. It seems harmonious with other frame-related controls such as frame-resize-pixelwise and frame-inhibit-implied-resize, unless I'm missing some subtlety, which I surely am.

-Stephane

On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 3:53 AM martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:
 > If we use a buffer local, I'll have to remove it after make-frame is
 > complete. If a let-bound variable, users would not have to remember to do
 > this. Either way, make_frame needs to ignore the specified buffer that
 > happens to be hidden.

But a variable is not by design "let-bound".  When this variable is
automatically buffer-local a user can choose

- whether a specific hidden buffer may be shown or not by setting the
   buffer-local value

- whether any hidden buffer may be shown or not by setting the default
   value

- whether only a specific 'make-frame' call is affected by using a
   let-binding.

martin