GNU bug report logs - #25521
26.0.50; After (make-frame '((name . "foo"))) (select-frame-by-name "foo") doesn't see the frame

Previous Next

Full log

Message #37 received at 25521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
Cc: 25521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, qwxlea <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#25521: 26.0.50;
 After (make-frame '((name . "foo"))) (select-frame-by-name "foo")
 doesn't see the frame
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:56:02 +0200

> From: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
> Cc: 25521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:02:41 -0500
> 
> > I wonder whether we should reinstate a wait there, but make it limited
> > so that it never infloops.  Otherwise, these issues will continue to
> > haunt us and the users.
> 
> This case can be solved in a simpler way, and in the other case
> (Bug#25511), I believe Martin was saying something similar, so I think
> it would be a bit premature to add the busy wait again.

Issues with rare use cases usually take many moons to emerge, but in
this case the complaints started right away.  So it seems like the
elimination of the loop interferes with non-rare use cases, which
means we will probably be seeing much more of similar complaints in
the future, including for stuff people do in their init files without
too detailed understanding of the underlying machinery.  I'd expect at
least some of these case not easily solved, and in any case it's a
nuisance to users and Lisp package developers.

What's more, a similar loop still exists on w32, so we will have
subtly different behavior on different platforms.

Reinstating the loop, but without the danger of inflooping, could have
taken care of these issues in advance.  Thus my proposal.

Previous Next

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