Re: Potential problem of minibuffer-message

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    o Should minibuffer-message has the same argument as message?

Those two functions are not really similar; there is no need for this
incompatible change.

    o Should it pay attention to the case of being called from
      non-minibuffer?  Should it automatically re-format the
      message to " [...]"?

I see no importance in this, but I have no objection to it
if someone finds it useful and wants to do it.

    o Should it use minibuffer-message-timeout as timeout?

I think the optional arg is good enough.  But if you have a specific
use for adding minibuffer-message-timeout, please do.

    o Isn't it better to take care of modified and read-only
      flags of the minibuffer?

Would you please be more specific?

    o If a rear-advancing overlay is in the minibufer and it
      has face (or any hooks) property, simply inserting a
      message yields an unpleasant result.  It seems that we
      should have a new function insert-after-markers (analogous
      to insert-before-markers).

Either that, or minibuffer-message-timeout could find all overlays on
the first character of the message, and move their ends back where
they belong.

I would expect that the latter is a less complex change overall.