From xemacs-m  Sun Mar 23 20:09:18 1997
Received: from GS213.SP.CS.CMU.EDU (GS213.SP.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.209.183])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA10347
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:09:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: by GS213.SP.CS.CMU.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA12448; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:09:16 -0500
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:09:16 -0500
Message-Id: <9703240209.AA12448@GS213.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Darrell Kindred <dkindred@cmu.edu>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: other-frame
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science
X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid (beta103)

The other-frame function (C-x 5 o) cycles through hidden
frames (in other fvwm pages), since it calls next-frame
with 'visible-nomini.  Wasn't part of the point of updating
the visibility flag for such frames that `C-x 5 o' could
ignore them?  It seems to me that we should do one of these
two things:

  1. change other-frame to ignore hidden frames (which will
     require adding yet another option to next-frame, maybe
     'visible-nohidden-nomini).
  2. do whatever it is that FSF does to cause fvwm to switch
     to the appropriate page when selecting a frame that's
     hidden. 

I think I'd prefer #1.

- Darrell

