[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:20:56 +0200
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:54 AM, martin rudalics <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'd kill all frames but one. `desktop-clear' means to start from a
> pristine state and one minibuffer-equipped frame showing *scratch* is
> the best approximation we have.
Well, yes, sure (one, or two if using a minibufferless /
minibuffer-only setup). But my point is that desktop-clear allows the
user to set up buffers s/he doesn't want to "clear", so perhaps it
makes sense todo the same with frames. OTOH, perhaps not, and just
going for the easy kill-them-all, Simon de Monfort's style.
> I suppose we want to make sure the window selected when saving should be
> selected after restoring (unless it's a minibuffer window).
> IIUC we'd have to fix a couple of errors in the Emacs sources to make it
> work so I would advise against trying to make it backward compatible.
> It has the advantage that we can save "something like" registered frame
> configurations to disk and read them back.
That, and also that it restores "dead" frames.