From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25665: 26.0.50; [PATCH] Indicate prefix arg in minibuffer prompt for shell-command Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:00:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5e6c5385-19a0-4705-9e62-8c0974047fa0@default> References: <> <<8760kjz4nv.fsf@calancha-pc>> <<83r3373y3f.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486674135 16768 195.159.176.226 (9 Feb 2017 21:02:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:02:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 25665@debbugs.gnu.org, mail@xuchunyang.me To: Eli Zaretskii , Tino Calancha Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 09 22:02:10 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvr0-00049u-DC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 22:02:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40220 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvr6-0007ls-4W for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:02:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43505) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvqy-0007lF-1e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:02:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvqt-0002o5-5z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:02:08 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:35294) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvqt-0002o1-3I for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:02:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvqs-0005Ij-QK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:02:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25665 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 25665-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25665.148667406320285 (code B ref 25665); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25665) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Feb 2017 21:01:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33488 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvpv-0005H7-95 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:01:03 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:25723) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbvpu-0005GT-0X for 25665@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:01:02 -0500 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v19L0t5G013426 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:00:55 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v19L0srZ011584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:00:55 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v19L0qAx004990; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:00:52 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83r3373y3f.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:129160 Archived-At: > > I am not sure about this. > > The meaning of the prefix argument must be explained in the docstring. > > That and the manual are the source of documentation, not the prompt. > > > > Having a short prompt is also good because there are more space > > in the line for the command; a short prompt is also better while tipyin= g > > a long command: sometimes you want to change something at the beginning= : > > < ; `beginning-of-buffer' > > Now you need to `C-f' several times to jump out of the prompt. The mor= e > > verbose prompt, the more `C-f' you need. > > > > Just my opinion. Let's see what other people think. >=20 > I think it goes against Emacs conventions. We have quite a few > commands that insert output into the current buffer when invoked with > an argument. (Sorry, I misunderstood the suggestion. I didn't look at the patch, and didn't get that this was about changing a _prompt_.) I don't think the suggestion "goes against Emacs conventions". Certainly it is the case that we do not do this for most commands that do something different when invoked with a prefix arg. But there is a difference between a command that prompts and one, such as `eval-last-sexp', that does not. Most "commands that insert output" when you use a prefix arg do not prompt, I think.=20 And I know of no convention that says that a command should not use a different prompt when a prefix arg is used. It's a judgment call. For this one I have no opinion. I don't think, however, that the length of the prompt is very important here. That's a fairly weak criterion for deciding whether to change the prompt. Doing something like what was suggested could be helpful mainly in a situation where (1) the behavior is very different if a prefix arg is used and (2) it's not easy to undo a mistaken use of the command. If that's not the case here then I don't see a need for it.