From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:09:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <877dm9nsii.fsf@gmail.com> <40f3c845-ba30-4112-bb3c-9c06c1f106d3@www.fastmail.com> <05c43a83-6e3c-4f10-a36f-0567bcceb3f6@www.fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4285"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "47150@debbugs.gnu.org" <47150@debbugs.gnu.org> To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 22 18:12:51 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 1lOO6k-0000zz-OC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:12:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52664 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOO6j-0004JF-NF for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:12:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37698) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOO42-0002LJ-PK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:10:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46876) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOO41-0005OE-PQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:10:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lOO41-0005wT-J8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:10:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:10:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47150 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 47150-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47150.161643298822816 (code B ref 47150); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:10:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 47150) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2021 17:09:48 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58422 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lOO3n-0005vu-PS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:09:48 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:37926) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lOO3l-0005vf-TW for 47150@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:09:46 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 12MH73NT052968; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:09:35 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=e9nWlKbjzStFceDQJduu/bc42uMl54hsw/5YKIcxq8g=; b=P2i88JZL1NlhKS8mBUBKiuUkOGx8QZj1DhJV0ohyuLicF01XzPbMs1ScUBMsGzDPTT/x mgKL5RSg7B+BtvVKi48USa2assiBjgZo152nvSRfPJec24+lh5wzamchevsV2AeWBdJc E5+3RwkVlilu/lk9pClD4qR4KBY8e+v6rRncUIrERYTXijOqc05mWflIX4tafYRAoNI7 cgTpxKU0jFl7W6whIxCIqD2FA6P36NWXyucUF61wY/9Hx+4NWdz8z1OmsERyGAFOLXLz fyQh+Z7SiObB0qKFWhLp1+7vTi9y/7H8BfubIDcrGiKxMTZYDOdwiCr+bT7GKtZwPotM 2w== Original-Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 37d90mc6w1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:09:35 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 12MH6J1t192064; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:09:34 GMT Original-Received: from nam11-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam11lp2170.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.56.170]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 37dtxx73da-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:09:34 +0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LxBI+Gn47e+T/rhow/b6ySWOdNpwVh2GkfH1T33v+E5GgWrTs9GBRaQpfvUWAkWpiGIG3OB/Q0+lN0lUFTY6pjnswNktReJISEjC6Tw9dgFc1iaUDBtCOrg2reTTBlTumvJNk3PaqUkfzaw2OZe5nFqPRRBxulKQ3orZKRbbLtKg2JBYyOMC0MCTv81gEtkLo/5mmD17ivq7ys7kch0WqugfTISPFTmi486Duws5o5PKjIt7dpcwxUu124MSmeIzLqaaYlEdKrrq1LAtIiFelqBicy/jSI/8NvVOKE+cbTP1pP4Ft1tReLhhtZVbzBtyyzgZ9BcZSogSZG+kTwyjBA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e9nWlKbjzStFceDQJduu/bc42uMl54hsw/5YKIcxq8g=; b=lt2H5uC08qvgiJWwxB+uOWIXDjJi7mie+ZjfAJglfokwdlx25RmEORRJhYIB4P46QeQ53iF+c29gnP5oOeOSBb1Rh1e2AypYxs84hmQjUjG6XxT2wor9z5LiynyW8SfOYaMTlh9sNkhkNjYla/oWu8shOtt5b19k54jvbmLu2llzMQc+pA9CHOBfLXK7Pj6LSwKPMAKXuR8yVhidleN8ZoUHTiGz/5skdqu8fwkrzkOxL3P+GiQ+ZovK0Xfl0fQ6RR1OSXjudBfRzBr0zg3k+2JNrvjbpuY7VD6cmpBnTdkU5vn2OV0oxe0ktwDImLRbqm8gAaAoY7E2xVSTPCYfFw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oracle.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=oracle.com; dkim=pass header.d=oracle.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-oracle-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e9nWlKbjzStFceDQJduu/bc42uMl54hsw/5YKIcxq8g=; b=HtSGslxOmn/7C/NH8ajHaONxjKAh4oWStdQCzW5vLcapVcgmdEjJpSJD+nRfOlOnKETMRpZrs41pKJgsyQJoJ9Jkd5nuc0o35SP3xWyToljsODAN8NxFPFBT6+g2z57rlALIo0d3v7Ir+gWDDOfGgOI28KRGu/NUSd/oiD2YUNY= Original-Received: from SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:11b::15) by SA2PR10MB4411.namprd10.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:116::8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3955.18; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:09:32 +0000 Original-Received: from SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b8d2:db6d:3e4b:d315]) by SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b8d2:db6d:3e4b:d315%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3955.027; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:09:32 +0000 Thread-Topic: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer Thread-Index: AQHXHzhGkdcXS6vwFUSNlV7whKGfDaqQNpzQ In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US authentication-results: muc.de; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;muc.de; dmarc=none action=none header.from=oracle.com; x-originating-ip: [73.170.83.28] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3eb942e1-3587-468f-9dfe-08d8ed554333 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SA2PR10MB4411: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(136003)(346002)(8936002)(66446008)(33656002)(66946007)(52536014)(2906002)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(44832011)(4326008)(7696005)(38100700001)(86362001)(83380400001)(71200400001)(6506007)(478600001)(76116006)(6916009)(186003)(316002)(9686003)(26005)(5660300002)(55016002)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 wFSPD3tEVJxBEDUO4uvCjM8xMMndegUsCmoXTgLL1yXpV3wIDlmBUR8oU2HxT/RUxCdz+X3F5aVt/NFkoxO9obFpszeaAMYJut x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True X-OriginatorOrg: oracle.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3eb942e1-3587-468f-9dfe-08d8ed554333 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Mar 2021 17:09:32.7906 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4e2c6054-71cb-48f1-bd6c-3a9705aca71b X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Bu6grOkt2nQgVqQKKynqgsRAxQkggwCFMiKu8APPm1xzCClRQBZF9vzVHYTKFAykjI/rKjyxowp3vFVJm40fpA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA2PR10MB4411 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=9931 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=901 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2103220123 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=9931 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2103220123 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:202843 Archived-At: > Things are already broken, slightly. I don't see that you say how things are (even slightly) broken. > In my recent enhancements to the minibuffer handling, I noticed that > minibuffers (the actual buffers) began life in fundamental-mode, got > used, then on termination were put into minibuffer-inactive-mode. >=20 > However, on being reused, these buffers remained in > minibuffer-inactive-mode rather than being restored to fundamental-mode. > This is silly, and "obviously" a bug. I fixed this bug by making an > active minibuffer always be in fundamental-mode. I don't see why it's "silly" or "'obviously' a bug", sorry. Yeah, I see that the doc string for `minibuffer-inactive-mode' suggests that it's not used when the minibuffer is active. And that's effectively the case, though the mode name might not reflect it. There's _nothing to that mode_, apart from its keymap, and its keymap is not used when the minibuffer is active. So the mode is there in name only. That's why I expect that your change will have no real effect. But I'm wary of it - let sleeping dogs lie. And if it does, in fact, have no real effect, then why make your change? This seems like a solution in search of a problem. What if the name of that mode was just `minibuffer' or `foobar'? Would you think/feel the same way about needing to add another mode? Seriously - please think about this. `minibuffer-inactive-mode' is, yes, a misnomer ... except that its (only?) purpose was to provide a keymap for use when the minibuffer is inactive. And the keymap name (with "inactive") comes free with the mode creation. If you really feel a need to clean something up here, consider changing that mode name (but aliasing the old one, for compatibility). To me, that would be the OCD end of story. > An active minibuffer doesn't use its own key map - > it uses the key map supplied to it by the calling function. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. An active minibuffer doesn't have a separate mode from `minibuffer-inactive-mode' (a misnomer, when active). And functions dynamically provide different keymaps for different active-minibuffer contexts/uses. > This is how being in minibuffer-inactive-mode (which > does have its own key map) "worked" for so long. Yes. It just means that `minibuffer-inactive-mode' is a do-nothing when the minibuffer is active. But what's the point of providing a new mode for when it's active? What could/would/will anyone _do_ with such a mode? Keymaps are all that really matter here, and giving the new mode its own keymap would be useless. (At least it _should_ be useless. And it will be ... until someone decides that for "consistency" or "completeness" its keymap should really take effect.) I don't really see that anything is missing or broken. > The OP of this bug tells me that minor modes which maintain lists of > "valid" major modes they work in, included minibuffers by including > minibuffer-inactive-mode in their lists. This sort of worked (except for > the first time a minibuffer was used), but is undesirable. Sounds like pilot error (misunderstanding) to me. Did OP demonstrate a real need to include a minibuffer mode in such minor-mode lists? IOW, where's the beef (bug)? > So the idea is to allow these minor modes to specify minibuffer-mode. Why? What's the need? Sorry, but I don't get it. It all sounds quite vague, as if someone thought that s?he really needed to specify a minibuffer mode in those minor-mode lists, and that need wasn't (isn't) real. Can we see a recipe that demonstrates a real problem? > I think there's a bug here, yes. I don't know of any particular minor > mode, off hand, that is affected by this, but the OP assure me they > exist. This isn't really the sort of bug that has recipes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That, right there, hints of a non-bug, I think. It sounds like a misunderstanding, to me.