Re: [PATCH] Keep network security info buffers after use

[Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>]

On 18 Dec 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
>> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:27:46 -0600
>> 
>> So, how about we change lisp/emacs-lisp/rmc.el:`rmc--show-help' 
>> to 
>> display how to enter a recursive edit?
>
>We don't advertise that key for a reason, so I don't think this 
>is a
>good idea.

Okay.  I'm curious what that reason is, if you have time to 
explain, but I'm fine accepting this decision as a given.

>I actually don't understand why you rejected the tow ideas 
>proposed to
>you.  Personally, I think Andreas's idea is the better one, and 
>not
>too hard to implement.  It also has the nice advantage that it 
>solves
>the exact problem you had and nothing else.

My problem with Andreas's idea...

>How about adding a command to (re-)display the cert info?

...is that I don't see how the user is likely to know about the 
existence of this new command.  It's already kind of rare to get 
prompted for cert info at all (it only happens to me every once in 
a while, usually when I'm starting to use on a new machine).

Remember, the cert or server info *is* already being displayed to 
the user when the `read-multiple-choice' prompt happens -- the 
info is right there in a displayed buffer.  The problem is that 
it's not obvious how to get out of the minibuffer and into that 
displayed buffer, for example to grab the info into the kill ring, 
or save it to a file, so that one can go back and use the info 
after the prompt cycle is done.

Now, it turns out that one *can* get out of the minibuffer, by 
entering a recursive edit with C-r, but nothing in the 
`read-multiple-choice' prompt indicates this, so the user would 
have to "just know" about this possibility.

If `C-x o' would just work at the `read-multiple-choice' prompt, 
and enable one to leave the minibuffer to travel around to other 
windows, that would also be a fine solution.  Actually, probably 
it would be the best solution, now that I think about it.

Are there reasons why `read-multiple-choice' disallows this by 
default?  I don't know much about the constraints and requirements 
of that function; I just know how it's been treating me lately 
:-).

Best regards,
-Karl