Request: Use message instead of message_with_string for user visible output?

["T.V. Raman" <tv.raman.tv@gmail.com>]

Personally I believe implementing all of this logic inside
command-error-function would become fragile over time.

My personal preference would be for emacs to call through to the
lisp layer except in cases where it's running out of memory or
otherwise crashing badly --- this would significantly simplify
the emacspeak implementation.

I consider command-error-function a  solution of last resort --
not the first option.
-- 

-- 


On 10/28/13, Jarek Czekalski <jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>
> W dniu 2013-10-27 23:07, T.V. Raman pisze:
>> My personal preference
>> would be to not  to muck with command-error-function -- I played
>> with it a bit last week -- it feels like too heavy a hammer, and
>> at the end of the day might also produce too much output.
>
> Raman, in this thread [1] we are given green light to improve
> command-error-function. Could you provide an example of the operation,
> that would be handled badly by command-error-function? For me it seems
> to be the best solution. For example it delivers "read only" message
> properly.
>
> Further, if "key undefined" was also populated as an error-message, it
> would not require special handling by Emacspeak. This is all a song of
> the future (Emacs 25), but why not having a good plan?
>
> By now you could start using command-error-function as if it was our
> private variable, later it would be made better accessible for packages
> and then we would adjust to new standards.
>
> Jarek
>
> [1]
> http://emacs.1067599.n5.nabble.com/command-error-function-default-handler-tp300931.html
>
>
>