[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil |
Date: |
Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:58:35 -0800 |
>> - (select-window (get-buffer-window buf))
>> + (select-window (get-buffer-window buf 'visible))
[...]
> I tend to prefer the argument 0 so that iconified frames are checked
> as well.
Installed.
Yes, `0' is better.
I would even prefer `t', since people can sometimes make frames invisible
instead of iconifying or deleting them. Invisible frames are a somewhat
bugged, but if people use them, then this should probably be `t', and if
they don't use them, then `t' and `0' act the same (nothing to lose).
Thanks,
Drew
- ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Drew Adams, 2005/11/05
- Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, John Paul Wallington, 2005/11/06
- Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Stefan Monnier, 2005/11/06
- Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, John Paul Wallington, 2005/11/06
- RE: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Stefan Monnier, 2005/11/06
- RE: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Drew Adams, 2005/11/06
- Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Stefan Monnier, 2005/11/07
- RE: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Drew Adams, 2005/11/07
- Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Stefan Monnier, 2005/11/07
- RE: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Drew Adams, 2005/11/07
- Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Stefan Monnier, 2005/11/07
- RE: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, Drew Adams, 2005/11/07
Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil, John Paul Wallington, 2005/11/06