Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour

[martin rudalics]

>> Frames whose names are F1, F2, etc. are terminal frames.  Is it
>> possible that the demonic Emacs doesn't delete the initial terminal
>> frame, like an otherwise "normal" interactive session would?
>
> Answering my own question: yes, that's what happens.

Funny.  I thought that

     When Emacs is
     invoked with the `--daemon' option, it does not create any initial
     frames, so `initial-window-system' is `nil'.

Does it create a frame afterwards?

> So Martin, I think other_visible_frames should be augmented for the
> fact that when IS_DAEMON is non-zero, there's one frame that is always
> there and does not constitute "other frames".

This would break `delete-frame' which apparently _should_ delete a frame
even if it's the last one in that case.  (I think so because nobody ever
complained about this fact.)  Is there a way to get IS_DAEMON in Elisp,
`initial-window-system' is deprecated AFAICT.

BTW, the bug should be already present in Emacs 23 when you quit a help
frame or a dedicated frame and that frame is the last visible frame.

martin