Re: ibuffer problem with pop-up-frames non-nil

[Stefan Monnier]

>     Maybe here it makes sense.  But be super extra careful with t in
>     such places: it considers all frames including frames on other displays.

> I didn't know that. Is that behavior special for `t'? Wouldn't it logically
> apply to `visible' and `0' also?

> If not:

>  - Why is `t' an exception in this regard?
>  - Is there no way to get the invisible-frames-too behavior
>    of `t', without also the other-displays-too behavior?

I think it makes sense: frames that are invisible are similar to frames on
other displays in the sense that no amount of `display-buffer' (or
pop-to-buffer) will be sufficient to display them.

BTW, why do you worry so much about invisible frames?  I've never actually
bumped into one.


        Stefan