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: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-26 03bb7a8: Avoid clearing echo-area message by auto-save-visited-file-name Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:44:19 +0200 Message-ID: <83pnurgjm4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20181126172847.31607.25553@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20181126172848.D835220427@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <83woozhfou.fsf@gnu.org> <871s77k5my.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <83tvk3hbze.fsf@gnu.org> <87k1kzioot.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <83sgznh8jo.fsf@gnu.org> <87bm6bblfp.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1543297337 24647 195.159.176.226 (27 Nov 2018 05:42:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 05:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eric Abrahamsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 27 06:42:13 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 1gRW8S-0006IJ-35 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 06:42:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40111 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRWAY-00015H-QI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:44:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53517) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRWAS-00010j-GH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:44:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRWAP-0001Ak-CM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:44:16 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37037) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRWAP-0001Ag-9D; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:44:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3864 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gRWAO-0001G4-Sl; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:44:13 -0500 In-reply-to: <87bm6bblfp.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (message from Eric Abrahamsen on Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:03:54 -0800) 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:231432 Archived-At: > From: Eric Abrahamsen > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:03:54 -0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Eric Abrahamsen > >> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:11:46 -0800 > >> > >> Well... I highly doubt I've seen something you haven't, but the > >> following seems to work correctly, doesn't it? > > > > How can I tell? > > The "Hi!" message remains visible after the `map-y-or-n-p' call returns. That's not what I meant. My problem is that this change was done on the release branch, and is part of both auto-save-visited-file-name and of save-some-buffers, the latter is an important frequently used command. I need to be absolutely sure using with-temp-message doesn't change these use cases in any significant way, to be able to use it on the release branch. And neither the non-trivial code of with-temp-message nor its doc string allow me to convince myself that this is the case. So if you think my change is equivalent to using with-temp-message, I'm okay with doing that on master, but on emacs-26 I would need a much stronger evidence than just its working in a single simple use case. Thanks. P.S. May I please request that people who watch the emacs-diffs list and respond to changes please subscribe to the bug list, where the changes are normally discussed for several days before they are pushed? It is very inefficient, to say the least, to have a change discussed, only to hear comments on it after it's already pushed. The discussions on the bug list, and the few days we usually wait for more comments, are precisely to allow more people to chime in. TIA