GNU bug report logs - #32921
emacsclient obeys Xresources even when launched with -nw

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 32921 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jimis <at> gmx.net
Subject: bug#32921: emacsclient obeys Xresources even when launched with -nw
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:02:54 +0300

> Cc: 32921 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 14:38:33 +0200
> 
> Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis <at> gmx.net> writes:
> 
> > I have set the Xresource *reverseVideo to true, and as expected emacs
> > reverses the colours when launched under X, and does not when launched
> > with -nw thus keeping the terminal colour selections.
> >
> > However emacsclient obeys the Xresources even when launched with
> > -nw. This leads to colour reversal in text mode, which is unwanted
> > since the xterm has already been configured as desired.
> 
> (I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately weren't resolved
> at the time.)
> 
> This behaviour is still present in Emacs 29.  This seems to be stemming
> from this:
> 
>   ;; Check the reverseVideo resource.
>   (let ((case-fold-search t))
>     (let ((rv (x-get-resource "reverseVideo" "ReverseVideo")))
>       (if (and rv
> 	       (string-match "^\\(true\\|yes\\|on\\)$" rv))
> 	  (setq default-frame-alist
> 		(cons '(reverse . t) default-frame-alist)))))
> 
> in term/x-win.el -- it sets reverse for all new frames, so when the -nw
> frame appears, it also gets reverted (which isn't what we want, I
> think).
> 
> If I just remove this, then everything still works fine (and the -nw
> client problem disappears), because:
> 
> (defun x-handle-reverse-video (frame parameters)
>   "Handle the reverse-video frame parameter and X resource.
> `x-create-frame' does not handle this one."
>   (when (cdr (or (assq 'reverse parameters)
> 		 (let ((resource (x-get-resource "reverseVideo"
> 						 "ReverseVideo")))
> 
> So it's always handled anyway, and the default-frame-alist setting is
> just counter-productive, I think?
> 
> Does anybody see any possible negative consequences of just removing
> that code from x-win.el?

Which sequence of calls ends up calling x-handle-reverse-video, and
what is the trigger for that sequence of calls?

(These kinds of changes in code that was there for decades give me the
creeps.)

Previous Next

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