GNU bug report logs - #16793
window-state-put needs a live window

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 16793 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 16793 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
To: Bug-Gnu-Emacs <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:20:04 +0100

Package: emacs
Version: 24.3.50
X-Debbugs-Cc: rudalics <at> gmx.at

There's a problem when restoring a frameset where "put"ing a window
state into the root window of a frame fails for some windows if the
frame is split (which is common enough).

It's easy to see the problem with

  emacs -Q
  C-x 2
  C-x r f a
  C-x r j a
  => "Error (frameset): #<window 6> is not a live window"

or

  emacs -Q
  ;; eval this in *scratch*
  (let (ws frw)
    (split-window)
    (setq frw (frame-root-window))
    (setq ws (window-state-get frw))
    (window-state-put ws frw))
  => "Lisp error: (error "#<window 6> is not a live window")"

Strictly speaking It's not a bug, because the docstring of
`window-state-put' says "Optional argument WINDOW must specify a live
window". But as the examples above show, it is less than useful to be
able to get the state of a window and not being able to put it again
into the same window.

In framesets, the problem arises because it's often the case that the
preferred frame to restore a window-state is the very same one the
window-state was saved from, particularly for saving/restoring in the
same session (as it happens with frameset-to-register /
jump-to-register). That minimizes flicker and simplifies dealing with
non-reused frames.

Martin suggests that frameset--restore should check that the root
window of the matching frame found is alive, and if not, discard that
frame and create a new one. That's doable, but it seems less than
optimal, from both a coding and UI perspective.

Message #8 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
Cc: rudalics <at> gmx.at, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:09:42 -0500

> Package: emacs
> Version: 24.3.50
> X-Debbugs-Cc: rudalics <at> gmx.at

[ The X-Debbugs-Cc should be in the email header, not in the here
  pseudo-header.  Welcome to Debbugs ;-)  ]

> Martin suggests that frameset--restore should check that the root
> window of the matching frame found is alive, and if not, discard that
> frame and create a new one.  That's doable, but it seems less than
> optimal, from both a coding and UI perspective.

I don't understand what this means.  Why would the frame's root window
not be alive?  Is it because it's an "internal" window (because of
a split)?  deleting a frame and creating a new one is definitely not
a good idea, since it can have all kinds of unintended side-effects,
depending on the window manager.


        Stefan

Message #11 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:31 -0500

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> X-Debbugs-Cc: rudalics <at> gmx.at
>
> [ The X-Debbugs-Cc should be in the email header, not in the here
>   pseudo-header.  Welcome to Debbugs ;-)  ]

Either works. Welcome to debbugs.gnu.org...

Message #14 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:24:19 -0500

Glenn Morris wrote:

>> [ The X-Debbugs-Cc should be in the email header, not in the here
>>   pseudo-header.  Welcome to Debbugs ;-)  ]
>
> Either works. Welcome to debbugs.gnu.org...

Actually, that's a standard Debian debbugs feature.

Message #17 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:36:22 +0100

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Monnier
<monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> [ The X-Debbugs-Cc should be in the email header, not in the here
>   pseudo-header.  Welcome to Debbugs ;-)  ]

[ It works here too. At least it worked all other times I've used it ;-) ]

> I don't understand what this means.  Why would the frame's root window
> not be alive?  Is it because it's an "internal" window (because of
> a split)?

Yes.

>  deleting a frame and creating a new one is definitely not
> a good idea, since it can have all kinds of unintended side-effects,
> depending on the window manager.

I just committed a workaround for this issue: deleting all windows
except the first one in the relevant frame if its root window isn't
alive.

But I still think that getting a window-state for a window and putting
it again into the same window should always be allowed, unless Martin
has a good reason why that symmetry is a bad idea.

Message #20 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:28:59 -0500

>>> [ The X-Debbugs-Cc should be in the email header, not in the here
>>> pseudo-header.  Welcome to Debbugs ;-)  ]
>> Either works. Welcome to debbugs.gnu.org...
> Actually, that's a standard Debian debbugs feature.

Hmm... should debbugs turn it into a "Cc:" (when it allocates
a bug-number to the email), then?


        Stefan

Message #23 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
Cc: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:29:45 -0500

> But I still think that getting a window-state for a window and putting
> it again into the same window should always be allowed, unless Martin
> has a good reason why that symmetry is a bad idea.

I tend to agree,


        Stefan

Message #26 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:37:34 -0500

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> Hmm... should debbugs turn it into a "Cc:" (when it allocates
> a bug-number to the email), then?

IIRC, it does, but Martin is subscribed to bug-gnu-emacs with
duplication suppression enabled, so bug-gnu-emacs Mailman strips out the
cc in the version of the mail it sends out to the list.

http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?msg=2;bug=16793

Message #29 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:04:12 +0100

> Martin suggests that frameset--restore should check that the root
> window of the matching frame found is alive, and if not, discard that
> frame and create a new one. That's doable, but it seems less than
> optimal, from both a coding and UI perspective.

That was a misunderstanding.  Your initial scenario was

  emacs -Q --eval "(setq debug-on-error t)"
  C-x 2
  C-x r f a
  C-x 5 2
  C-u C-x r j a

so I thought you wanted to create a new frame anyway ;-)

martin

Message #32 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:04:28 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> But I still think that getting a window-state for a window and putting
> it again into the same window should always be allowed, unless Martin
> has a good reason why that symmetry is a bad idea.

I tend to agree with you.  But the obvious consequence is that the
WINDOW argument of `window-state-put' could then specify an internal
window that is not the root window of its frame.  In this case plain
`delete-other-windows' would be the wrong action.  I attach a patch.

martin

[window-state-put.diff (text/plain, inline)]

=== modified file 'lisp/window.el'
--- lisp/window.el	2014-02-10 01:34:22 +0000
+++ lisp/window.el	2014-02-18 18:59:17 +0000
@@ -5026,14 +5026,29 @@
   "Put window state STATE into WINDOW.
 STATE should be the state of a window returned by an earlier
 invocation of `window-state-get'.  Optional argument WINDOW must
-specify a live window and defaults to the selected one.
+specify a valid window and defaults to the selected one.  If
+WINDOW is not live, delete all child windows of WINDOW before
+putting STATE.

 Optional argument IGNORE non-nil means ignore minimum window
 sizes and fixed size restrictions.  IGNORE equal `safe' means
 windows can get as small as `window-safe-min-height' and
 `window-safe-min-width'."
   (setq window-state-put-stale-windows nil)
-  (setq window (window-normalize-window window t))
+  (setq window (window-normalize-window window))
+
+  (unless (window-live-p window)
+    (let ((root (frame-root-window)))
+      (if (eq window root)
+	  (setq window (frame-first-window root))
+	(setq root window)
+	(setq window (catch 'live
+		       (walk-window-subtree
+			(lambda (window)
+			  (when (window-live-p window)))
+			root))))
+      (delete-other-windows-internal window root)))
+
   (let* ((frame (window-frame window))
 	 (head (car state))
 	 ;; We check here (1) whether the total sizes of root window of

Message #35 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:08:34 +0100

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:04 PM, martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at> wrote:

> That was a misunderstanding.

Oh, glad to hear it.

>  Your initial scenario was
>
>   emacs -Q --eval "(setq debug-on-error t)"
>
>   C-x 2
>   C-x r f a
>   C-x 5 2
>   C-u C-x r j a
>
> so I thought you wanted to create a new frame anyway ;-)

With or without C-x 5 2, "C-x r f a" followed a time later by "C-x r j
a" is intended to reuse frames if possible, not create new ones. But I
suppose I could've been clearer. Sorry about that.

Message #38 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:45:37 -0500

> IIRC, it does, but Martin is subscribed to bug-gnu-emacs with
> duplication suppression enabled, so bug-gnu-emacs Mailman strips out the
> cc in the version of the mail it sends out to the list.

Aha!  Live and learn!  I still don't consider that I know what
"duplication suppression" really means in a mailing-list-manager, but at
least I finally saw it in action for the first time.


        Stefan

Message #41 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:18:22 +0100

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:04 PM, martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at> wrote:

> I tend to agree with you.  But the obvious consequence is that the
> WINDOW argument of `window-state-put' could then specify an internal
> window that is not the root window of its frame.  In this case plain
> `delete-other-windows' would be the wrong action.

Yeah. In my workaround that wasn't important because I specifically
got the frame's root.

>  I attach a patch.

Was this:

> +       (setq window (catch 'live
> +                      (walk-window-subtree
> +                       (lambda (window)
> +                         (when (window-live-p window)))
> +                       root))))

intended to be

  (setq window (catch 'live
                 (walk-window-subtree
                  (lambda (window)
                    (when (window-live-p window)
                      (throw 'live window)))
                  root))))

I suppose?

   J

Message #44 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:26:54 +0100

> Was this:
> 
>> +       (setq window (catch 'live
>> +                      (walk-window-subtree
>> +                       (lambda (window)
>> +                         (when (window-live-p window)))
>> +                       root))))
> 
> intended to be
> 
>   (setq window (catch 'live
>                  (walk-window-subtree
>                   (lambda (window)
>                     (when (window-live-p window)
>                       (throw 'live window)))
>                   root))))
> 
> I suppose?

You suppose correctly.

martin

Message #47 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:51:24 +0100

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at> wrote:

> You suppose correctly.

It works correctly ;-)

   J

Message #50 received at 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 16793 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:02:30 +0100

> It works correctly ;-)

Installed (with the throw) in revision 116477.  You should be able to
remove your workaround now.

martin

Message #55 received at 16793-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: 16793-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#16793: window-state-put needs a live window
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:09:24 +0100

> Installed (with the throw) in revision 116477.  You should be able to
> remove your workaround now.

Done. Thanks.

Previous Next

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