RE: feature request: indicator of minibuffer-recursion depth

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

        From: Kim F. Storm [mailto:storm@cua.dk]
        Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com> writes:
        > ;;; minibuf-depth.el --- Indicate minibuffer-depth in prompt
        Very clever!!  Thanks! I made a few changes:
        1) rename file to mb-depth.el to avoid 8+3 conflict with
        minibuf-eldef.el ...

    From:Drew Adams
    Did this never make it into the release? ...
    This is a useful thing. I think it should not only be present,
    but should be enabled by default.

  From: Richard Stallman Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:42 PM
  At this point, I would rather save it for after the release.

Why? This wouldn't impact anything else in any way, especially if it were
turned off by default. The code itself is miniscule. I think this is quite
useful.

It could even be argued that having *no* user feedback to indicate that you
are in a recursive minibuffer is a *bug* - even a serious UI bug. It is
this, more than anything else, that turns a recursive minibuffer into a mine
field: users don't know what's happening. With this feedback, the mine field
is cleared, IMO.

That was why I brought this up in the first place: I argued that [[...]] in
the mode line was a good indication of recursive editing, and something
similar is missing for recursive minibuffers. I originally suggested
indicating this too in the mode line, but I'm happy with the solution
implemented by Miles.

Imagine if we had no [...] in the mode line for recursive edits. Wouldn't
you consider that a bug? Wouldn't a recursive edit become a mine field too,
without feedback?