From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Potential problem of minibuffer-message Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 07:23:04 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200304100144.KAA16944@etlken.m17n.org> <200304110222.LAA18413@etlken.m17n.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1050233746 14619 80.91.224.249 (13 Apr 2003 11:35:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 11:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 13 13:35:43 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 194flu-0003nb-00 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 13:35:42 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 194fmm-0006V1-00 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 13:36:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 194fmA-0003Kc-0C for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 07:35:58 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 194fj4-0001G8-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 07:32:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 194ffO-0008Dg-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 07:29:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 194fZh-0006Bf-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 07:23:05 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 194fZg-0006Is-00; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 07:23:04 -0400 Original-To: Kenichi Handa In-reply-to: <200304110222.LAA18413@etlken.m17n.org> (message from Kenichi Handa on Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:22:01 +0900 (JST)) Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13202 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13202 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.