Subject: bug#8856: 24.0.50; regression: `special-display-popup-frame' broken

From: "Drew Adams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:34:54 -0700

>  > This then raises the error
>  > "Buffer is read-only #<buffer *Completions*>"
> 
> It does.  But it does the same on an old verion of trunk here 
> too.  Are you sure that the version of throw-one.el you sent
> me works with your old Emacs?

Yes, I'm sure.  I just re-tested using throw-one.el with both Emacs 23.3 and
with a build from the week before your code was added, 2011-06-03.

However, I had to remove the line I had added to throw-one.el to load your
window.el, since otherwise I got an error saying that function `window-list-1'
is void.

IOW, I cannot test an older build with your new window.el, because of that
error, but I can test an older build without any of your additions. Things work
fine with the older builds, starting from emacs -Q, with throw-one.el (minus the
line loading your new window.el).

When I test using any such old builds, the minibuffer frame keeps the focus
properly, so there is no error saying that *Completions* is read-only.  IOW, the
focus redirection from the *Completions* frame to the minibuffer frame works (in
the versions prior to your addition).

> BTW, in both versions I get the error when I hit c-] already.

I do not get any error when I hit `C-]'.  Instead I get the normal behavior for
`C-]', with the message `Quit' in the echo area.  What you're seeing sounds like
another bug (even in older releases apparently), on your platform but not on
mine (Windows).  `C-]' (`abort-recursive-edit') should just exit to the top
level and print `Quit' in this case.

Maybe, if you cannot reproduce the bug I reported, it is MS Windows-specific.

> Anyway, let's see what happens.  `display-buffer' should
> execute this part...  So I can't imagine that `display-buffer'
> got anything to do with this.

I don't quite follow you here.  Was there something you wanted me to check about
that?

> However, I noticed that I have changed `pop-to-buffer'.  Does 
> it help if you use the version below?  It doesn't help here as
> I explained above.
>
> (defun pop-to-buffer...

No, that changes nothing, unfortunately.  I see exactly the same behavior (and
different behavior apparently from what you see).

This is one reason I wanted you to just load the original files I sent and see
if you could reproduce the problem, as a start.  It's looking like the bug might
be Windows-specific.

Anyway, we at least now have a pared-down file to test with.

Thx.