From xemacs-m  Tue May  6 13:05:39 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12411
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 6 May 1997 13:05:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcojw27788; Tue, 6 May 1997 14:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QQcojw27788.199705061805@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: Minibuffer and  multiple frames
In-Reply-To: <kigd8r44hsz.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <16594.862938741@rtp.ericsson.se>
	<kigd8r44hsz.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under 20.2 XEmacs Lucid (beta4)
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

Hrvoje Niksic writes:
 > It's definitely annoying.  We should implement the
 > minibuffer-per-frame stuff correctly.  However, I don't have an
 > estimate of the amount of work it would take.

A while ago David Moore pointed out that this basically means
implementing threading.

