From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: User interaction from multiple threads Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:46:14 +0300 Message-ID: <83a7pmifvd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838t59j821.fsf@gnu.org> <5B73DF10.5070200@gmx.at> <87muto5998.fsf@gmx.de> <5B73ED7E.5000102@gmx.at> <87in4b6hwf.fsf@gmx.de> <5B741C4E.6060403@gmx.at> <83sh3fin70.fsf@gnu.org> <5B756C41.1040600@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1534428453 868 195.159.176.226 (16 Aug 2018 14:07:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:07:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: michael.albinus@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 16 16:07:28 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1fqIvw-00006d-1I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:07:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55858 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqIy2-0006wU-Jf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:09:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33989) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqIbe-0007bI-IF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:46:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqIbb-00007e-65 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:46:30 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:41754) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqIba-00007R-Lf; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:46:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4057 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fqIbZ-0006Xm-UQ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:46:26 -0400 In-reply-to: <5B756C41.1040600@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:21:21 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:228591 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:21:21 +0200 > From: martin rudalics > CC: michael.albinus@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > and then > > higher-level code works on the text in the minibuffer. By contrast, > > you want input to be sent to keyboard code from a buffer(??). > > I'd want to relax the organization of minibuffers. Instead of > maintaining them in form of a stack, allow random access to the > minibuffer list. Instead of having always only the one on top of the > stack active, allow to make any of them the active one. And allow any > of them to appear in its own dedicated minibuffer window where the > selectedness of that window's frame indicates the currently active > minibuffer. That is a fine plan, but how does it make the issue at hand easier to solve?