Re: Buffer's point changes when frame closed.

ms> The synchronization between the window point of the selected ms> window and its buffer's point is necessary so that commands ms> *you type* will DTRT, namely act at the point where the user ms> is typing. Stephen> I think that is wrong. The reason for the synchronization window Stephen> point -> buffer point is so that _programs_ What do you mean by "programs"? It seems you mean exactly the same thing as what I meant by "commands"---in XEmacs, commands *are* programs. I added the qualification "you type" to mean this whole business only makes sense for interaction anyway. Stephen> will act at the point the user was typing or viewing, unless Stephen> explicitly told to do otherwise. Then while the program is Stephen> doing whatever it does, the reverse synchronization (buffer Stephen> point -> window point) is done so that the user is aware of Stephen> what the program did, again unless the program deliberately Stephen> conceals any motion it executed. That is exactly what I meant, as well. Stephen> When the user is typing, there is no need whatsoever for a separate Stephen> concept of buffer point (except in the sense of manipulating the gap, Stephen> but that's not user-visible). Just insert/delete/twiddle/fix case/ Stephen> whatever at _window point_, which is always well-defined while the Stephen> user is typing. Exactly. ms> There's no reason for this synchronicity to be in ms> place in windows where the user is *not* typing. ms> (In this case, selected windows of unselected frames.) Stephen> That's a meaningless statement. Synchronicity is a property of how Stephen> buffer and window points _change_ in response to selection state Stephen> changes and buffer point motion, not of the particular buffer point Stephen> <-> window point mapping at any given time or selection state. Of course, I believe it is not a meaningless statement. On the other hand, I don't understand at all what you're saying. It reads like complete gibberish to me. Let me repeat: Currently, there *is* synchronicity in places where the user is not typing, namely in selected windows of non-selected frames. This is pointless and confusing, from the user's perspective. (Well, point-*full*, actually ...) This is as simple as I can put it. What do you read into this? ms> There'd be no heuristics involved at all. Stephen> No, just complete nondeterminism. :-) Ah, now, what is it: is my statement meaningless or does it prescribe non-determinism? -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla