Subject: Re: bug#69738: Followup

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:50:28 +0300

> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 17:55:55 +0000
> From: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 
> Actually the neat solution is probably to treat frames as a ring, so 
> that C-x 5 o would go back to the previous frame. Is there any reason 
> why frames were not conceived as a ring, but ``rigidly''?

Thanks, but it's a non-starter to change how frames are managed, just
to solve this minor issue.  The solution cannot be too complicated,
certainly not with TTY frames, where even the window manager isn't
involved.