From xemacs-m  Tue Feb  4 23:06:47 1997
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (CNRI.Reston.VA.US [132.151.1.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA24154
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:06:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: from newcnri.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01190;
          5 Feb 97 0:03 EST
Received: from anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US by newcnri.CNRI.Reston.Va.US (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA11239; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:03:17 -0500
Received: by anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA26671; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:03:16 -0500
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:03:16 -0500
Message-Id: <199702050503.AAA26671@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
From: "Barry A. Warsaw" <bwarsaw@anthem.cnri.reston.va.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Keyboard focus policy (was Re: 19.15b92 - Pure storage exhausted)
References: <199702040556.WAA07410@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<m2pvyh9jnr.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199702042037.NAA12497@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<199702042147.OAA14285@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<kig3evcgq5g.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
	<199702042247.RAA21204@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
	<m2iv48f3k9.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Reply-To: bwarsaw@python.org
X-Attribution: BAW
X-Oblique-Strategy: Do nothing for as long as possible
X-WWW-Homepage: http://www.python.org/~bwarsaw


>>>>> "sb" == Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:

>>>>> "BAW" == Barry Warsaw <bwarsaw@python.org> writes:

    BAW> In fact with this variable set to t, M-x other-frame doesn't
    BAW> even throw focus to the other frame.

    sb> That's correct.

    BAW> I'm not sure I'd call my explicitly calling other-frame
    BAW> `gratuitous'.

    sb> In focus-follows-mouse policy keyboard focus should *only* be
    sb> changed as a result of the user moving the mouse.  *Anything*
    sb> else is gratuitous.  This stuff seriously upsets me because it
    sb> is directly circumventing the environmental defaults I as a
    sb> user have specified.

I think you are saying that you'd prefer XEmacs to adhere to the
Passive Input focus model (see my previous message), right?

I'm willing to accept that not every user will want the Locally Active
Input focus model that I prefer.  I think many will and many won't.
The same is probably true for the Passive model.

`focus-follows-mouse' is the wrong name for a variable that selects
between Locally Active and Passive Input models.  My proposal is
outlined in my other message.  Does that sound reasonable?

    sb> The XEmacs frame and focus code to me is one big tangled mess
    sb> of seriously broken code.

That sucks, but I kind of guessed that.  First we need to agree on the
ground rules, and then document what XEmacs *should* be doing in each
case.  I hope we can fix XEmacs in this release, but that's my own
selfish priority list showing through. :-)

-Barry

