Re: Terminology in multi-tty primitives

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:32:11 -0500
> 
> - the user-level command make-frame-on-tty doesn't seem very useful and
>   I'd be happy to remove it.
> 
> - if we remove it, then we have to replace the only call to it from
>   Elisp, which is of course in server.el.
>   I guess server.el can't be used under MS-DOS, so the test you added
>   wouldn't be needed there anyway, so server.el could just as well use
>   (make-frame `((window-system) (tty . ,tty) (tty-type . ,type) . 
> ,parameters))
>   so the uglyness is not really crucial in make-frame.

server.el is indeed not used in the MS-DOS port, so removing
make-frame-on-tty will eliminate the need for that kludge.  (I somehow
had an impression that make-frame-on-tty is used somewhere else, but I
see now that I was dreaming.)

However, are we really that sure users won't want to have an ability
to create frames on other tty's?  By the same token, why do we have
make-frame-on-display? the same reason(s) would be arguments to retain
make-frame-on-tty.

> - still, when make-frame is called with an explicit `tty' argument but
>   without an explicit `window-system' argument, the right thing to do is
>   to give precedence to the `tty' and choose an appropriate
>   window-system for it.

If we don't need this, why introduce it?