From xemacs-m  Wed Feb 12 12:57:23 1997
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA02759
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:57:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: from Canada.Sun.COM ([129.155.5.101]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id KAA03552 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:56:43 -0800
Received: from scooter.canada.sun.com by Canada.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id NAA00246; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:56:30 -0500
Received: from verve.canada.sun.com by scooter.canada.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA26310; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:56:30 -0500
Received: by verve.canada.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA23265; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:55:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:55:57 -0500
Message-Id: <199702121855.NAA23265@verve.canada.sun.com>
From: Georg Nikodym <georgn@Canada.Sun.COM>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 20.0: changing frame ordering improves selection behavior
In-Reply-To: <QQccpb09057.199702121556@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
References: <QQccpb09057.199702121556@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
Reply-To: georgn@Canada.Sun.COM
X-Face:  ,~EI@l7'&P{\d++e`EMjNTNpzsxJPg(H]?Sd_T3xIlq[(PT[.D;A_/k)qfeC@m\/1]A{vZD
 r4&Lme-/M]c'Q>>:VM|L^<ED=j@dG!ld,bQ:IhT53q'x>6wZKH3iCT6Ff1-`*z{vCiT}+%(irA6TOn
 S~pFtml1bL\=kp%0PsLcF3+Q/e${o|S/<NUFDrU@;^o(D+av1g>Ce=ztlPGb$?up%c-*l'wmjw\sw;
 D__0Z;+93I+Kx6Mxdc]+|2V03aE@D8-fMT_v[~~FC9I\*|72QVW,aQ!`hHp_.gE.W&kxla2#)\Cmo
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.103)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>>>> "KJ" == Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:

 KJ> Create three frames in succession, F1, F2, F3.  Under XEmacs the
 KJ> frame list looks like this

 KJ> (F1 F2 F3)

 KJ> Under FSF Emacs it looks like this

 KJ> (F3 F2 F1)

 KJ> Now delete the selected frame, which is F3.  FSF Emacs selects
 KJ> F2, since F2 is after F3 in its list.  XEmacs selects F1, since
 KJ> F3 has no next in its list.  F1 is probably at the bottom of the
 KJ> window system's frame stack since it was created first.  So if
 KJ> XEmacs Lisp code deletes a frame and then does a minibuffer read,
 KJ> the minibuffer window chosen is in F1, at the bottom of the frame
 KJ> stack.  FSF Emacs running the same code uses the minibuffer
 KJ> window of F2 which is at the top of the frame stack.

I just ran into this in a real world example, and vote for Kyle's
patch.

I had a "main" frame, a VM frame, and a composition frame created in
that order.  The composition frame is on top ot the VM frame.  I have
focus-follows-mouse set to t.  After sending the mail I was composing,
the composition frame goes away, the window mangler (CDE) indicates
that the VM frame has focus but further typing reveals that in fact
the main frame is the one catching the input...

One other detail, all these frames are on the :0.1 display (via the
File->Frame on Other Display menu item) where XEmacs was started on
File->File->the :0.0 display...

