On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 10:29:20AM -0500, source liu wrote: > > No -- you asked for what you got here, when you said "Destroy". So I am not > > surprised the application closed all its windows. It did exactly what you > > asked it to. > > I see, maybe i should repent myself, i regarded *destroy* as the > enforced version of *close*.
Nope. That's backwards. Close in FVWM terms, first sends a Delete and then a Destroy. Delete is defined in the ICCCM spec which some applications can feel free to ignore. So in your case, by issuing a Destroy command you're doing more damage because in that case the result is often to get the process managing that window to be killed, or some other undefined behaviour I can't tell you without looking at the source to a program. > and it also enforced the number of windows :) should i cheer for the > result which i got that that i See above. > expect? > > btw, if you use emacs M-x into the shell mode, and type emacs to > start another emacs, > > and when you perform the *destory* on the latter one, the first one > remains ( of course, perform *destory* > on the first one would destory the latter one, as expected), > > what is the difference between the case i mentioned earlier( for > scilab), and this case. See above. You want to always use "Close" which will always try and Do The Right Thing (tm). -- Thomas Adam
