From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#40774: Error messages shouldn't be hidden when the user is idle Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 21:49:26 +0200 Message-ID: <83wnk9mwmx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83blnje5ro.fsf@gnu.org> <838sine4si.fsf@gnu.org> <837dy7e3wr.fsf@gnu.org> <-ZmNQQ07JD7L0I5EpXolv4t1UhWBGc4SN0dkJml3cLbBjO6ucAMUzAqsI9Ca69xO_hzlMLfaLs6bY9vq8GAR24RUGu1LZqVoVkXhiJcFgtg=@protonmail.com> <835zdre31u.fsf@gnu.org> <87v9lpluez.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <874koxwi1t.fsf@gnus.org> <86pmqa51cz.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87bl1uojxd.fsf@gnus.org> <86czmakaem.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87tufmnuz6.fsf@gnus.org> <86bl1uyt8f.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87r1aocf5p.fsf@gnus.org> <83czm7xozh.fsf@gnu.org> <86wnkerjgt.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <8335n2x3w5.fsf@gnu.org> <865yrtiqb6.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7093"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 40774@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, ndame@protonmail.com To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 12 20:50:33 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUrg-0001kP-JG for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 20:50:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34042 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUre-0001K1-Hl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:50:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40556) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUrD-0001JX-4W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:50:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41662) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUrB-0004AO-Rk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:50:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUrB-0001fj-PW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:50:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:50:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 40774 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 40774-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B40774.16393385826399 (code B ref 40774); Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:50:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 40774) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Dec 2021 19:49:42 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53208 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUqs-0001f9-Dx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:49:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39568) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUqq-0001ew-IT for 40774@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:49:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=38744 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUqk-00045a-JS; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:49:34 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=60/XiD2qdrbzQkp8PS4/1r+e/4dHwaoyeokNdP8zjn0=; b=ZxiymRGA5yqm D+tp1zYB5rTsr4V+9Jv4JzQkveeQecmGJz42cPfDOuLn30LhPASCnbmsbB/sycYKSlmTF4mJWyxZw x/8YAC8GEJEHBPsDrtoZKP2jNCwH7+sFSj6hDaubUXLNojeSHoEgPJs6ht1bO2/H8XpGyJ4+170XJ tcLMwCetDAsMF0i4YPLBe6aa9xh7VsL5HaddwpklLM0lJGf6I2KP7U5VUOCslrCzOcqH1hPXI8BF9 O9OHaMeGQgXI2E97gMo4paE1Y1qvcpipHLIr+6e+XtQ6CwxiN2TvSAxu33GElnMN+Q9/4UL8aniho LjidNgBkDS+DAwuhwKz3dw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3530 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mwUqk-0000Od-8w; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:49:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <865yrtiqb6.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (message from Juri Linkov on Sun, 12 Dec 2021 21:19:41 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:222263 Archived-At: > From: Juri Linkov > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 40774@debbugs.gnu.org, ndame@protonmail.com > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 21:19:41 +0200 > > >> +** The return value of 'clear-message-function' is not ignored anymore. > >> +If the function returns t, then the message is not cleared, > >> +with the assumption that the function cleared it itself. > > > > I could perhaps agree to this if the special new behavior was the > > result of a very special return value, and only that value. Having > > the new behavior kick in for t is out of the question for the release > > branch, as it is highly likely to trip unsuspecting Lisp programs. > > What a special value would you prefer? Maybe, a symbol 'no'? More like 'no-clear or even 'dont-clear-message, I think. > > Btw, what does the change of the order between the call of > > clear-message-function and setting echo_area_buffer[0] to nil mean, > > compatibility-wise? won't it also produce different results, even if > > the return value is nil? > > When the return value is nil, it will still clear the echo area. That wasn't what I asked. I asked whether the change in the order could matter. Specifically, we now set echo_area_buffer[0] to nil after we run clear-message-function, not before. Can that affect some customization of clear-message-function? > > More generally, I fear that we are trying very hard to tweak a > > particular infrastructure for a job for which it was hardly meant. > > This is the most simple and thus reliable solution. > > > IOW, shouldn't we provide some completely different optional feature > > for this use case? Like a special buffer that pops up or a special > > frame? Echo-area is not suited for showing large chunks of text, and > > my gut feeling is that we will bump into problems on this path. E.g., > > what happens when there are enough accumulated messages that they can > > no longer be shown with the maximum allowed height of the mini-window? > > This is exactly what functions bound to clear-message-function intended to do. ??? This function is about _clearing_ the echo-area, whereas I was talking about the _display_ in the echo-area. I'm saying that I'm not sure echo-area display is suited for the jobs that this bug wants it to do. As an example, I asked what would happen when the echo-area can no longer be resized to accommodate all the messages that were not cleared.