GNU bug report logs - #13336
`next-frame' should not choose the *Backtrace* frame while debugging

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: "13336 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <13336 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: bug#13336: [External] : Re: bug#13336: `next-frame' should not choose the *Backtrace* frame while debugging
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 09:53:43 +0200

>> Why can't you add the `no-other-frame' parameter to that common list for
>> the *Backtrace* buffer alone?
>
> Dunno what you mean.  (But it sounds like duplicating
> the common list, and adding something to the copy.)

Maintain a 'basic-alist' of frame parameters and for the *Backtrace*
buffer use

(cons (cons 'no-other-frame t) basic-alist)

as list of frame parameters.

> Why doesn't its doc give users a heads-up in this
> (unspecified) regard, if it requires special
> knowledge or handling?

I don't know but there is one thing I know for sure: Setting up a frame
and using `after-make-frame-functions' to add or a change a parameter is
madness.  Creating a frame mostly means to process frame parameters in a
carefully laid out fashion.  If, at the end of that, a user decides that
some additional parameter should be processed, this may confuse the hell
out of that process.  Never do that - specify all parameters you need at
the time you ask Emacs to create the frame.

>> And you cannot augment that alist by additional elements for specific
>> buffers?
>
> Dunno what you mean.  It's just like
> `special-display-frame-alist' - an alist of frame
> parameters.  It applies to all special-display
> buffers.

See above.

> `display-buffer-alist' terrifies me. ;-)

It's just as terrific as `special-display-regexps'.

martin

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.