From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#43519: 28.0.50; Overlay at end of minibuf hides minibuf's real content Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:52:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83wo0p1twr.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1qx1q9v.fsf@gnu.org> <838sd425l2.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuvrxlho.fsf@gnu.org> <83mu1jxhyd.fsf@gnu.org> <83imc7xg9h.fsf@gnu.org> <83ft7bxcjj.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2l1x5oh.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40689"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 43519@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 22 18:36:57 2020 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 1kKlHk-000AWP-5E for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:36:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39734 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKlHj-0003W9-7X for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:36:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43002) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKkbG-0002l3-E1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:49722) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKkbF-0002kq-Sw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kKkbF-0002I7-Ql for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:53:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:53:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43519 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 43519-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43519.16007899398757 (code B ref 43519); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:53:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 43519) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Sep 2020 15:52:19 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33035 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kKkaZ-0002HB-2R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:59926) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kKkaX-0002H3-4Y for 43519@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:52:17 -0400 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@otaku.sdf.org [205.166.94.8]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 08MFqGA9018424 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:52:16 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 08MFqWbM021650; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:52:32 GMT In-Reply-To: <83y2l1x5oh.fsf@gnu.org> 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:188719 Archived-At: >>> Maybe such a change in behavior is desirable (I'm not sure, and I >>> don't yet have a clear idea how will Lisp programs decide which >>> behavior to request), but it's a separate issue. >> >> Okay, so shall I file another bug just to have this same discussion >> again? > > Yes, please. > But you already told me that you will be opposed to such a change...