From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Use of minibuffer-prompt face when minibuffer is not involved Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 16:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <<8736lmi2dg.fsf@gmail.com>> < <54cf21f3-86fa-4af4-9872-7493b44e2f6f@default>> <> <<83o949ecdc.fsf@gnu.org>> <83o949cc88.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="123422"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 13 01:32:39 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hPxxO-000Vzd-HC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 01:32:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48501 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPxxN-0000n4-AT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 19:32:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42359) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPxxG-0000mm-RJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 19:32:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPxxF-0001kp-MW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 19:32:30 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:34050) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPxxD-0001j3-1Z; Sun, 12 May 2019 19:32:27 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4CNSR4r076202; Sun, 12 May 2019 23:32:24 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=nz8iSc1vnJg7QVh3WaJqiSFfI1PapAqv/ETvWsUhkgs=; b=ShPlLWwDTM2CkoIBdkdgRx+s7LP7V0ZcYsBnhu1Fre8k0LHUbBO6KuBGba6g0ggmWsy7 C/l0slJD7jJZUa9pvJrI0ED46uOfctMXx1ab9h6MuaknZBJJW68vSiIH1cB4Lr8WRQ5g Fu8OfODOZjIPPGOq7inQqNhVbh6XdDNm/1LjGDJwneZu8y6Hq0DlKnUZxE9EIKUrEROr 6lDhxhjqbcPTKNZYvRrL3Jb8ggf+yNJa32JtVLxXYrUyieMdf11gpUr0rk1VlNXPl8UL BvUqnn2ehgtwMuJDyd163SrmJoD9DtTcYdTECtrN6VckuIL6dpinljimOu4KrmaqfC24 qg== Original-Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2sdnttbqkf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 12 May 2019 23:32:24 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4CNVQib080136; Sun, 12 May 2019 23:32:23 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2se0tv9ngn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 12 May 2019 23:32:23 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x4CNWLVa011761; Sun, 12 May 2019 23:32:21 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4849.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9255 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=859 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905120176 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9255 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=883 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905120176 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.86 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:236453 Archived-At: > > > Active minibuffer is in _no_ way "an internal detail". >=20 > > You have 2 core Emacs developers disagree with you, which=20 > > is a clear sign that you are wrong. >=20 > That question is a matter of judgment, not objective fact. It's an objective fact that the minibuffer being used for input is observably different behavior from reading input in other ways (e.g. `read-char'). If users can perceive different behavior then the difference is not just an internal detail. I don't think that's a matter of judgment or opinion. There may be implementation matters to consider, but that doesn't change the fact that the behaviors are different for _users_. And anyway, no particular implementation matters were presented for discussion. There was only an invitation to "see the code" (which?). =20 > If this were a question of objective fact, the maintainers could > conceivably be objectively wrong, and someoe else objectively right. > Such things are unusual, but they do happen. What is "this"? The question posed was whether non-minbuffer prompts should have a face, and if so, which face. Everyone has so far agreed on that. And yes, _that's_ a question of opinion/judgment. Normally when such questions are raised here reasons are given to support opinions, and ultimately the maintainers decide/judge. > But there is no objectively right in a question like this. The > maintainers have to go by _their_ best judgment. Others who disagree > can try to show good reasons for judging things differently; but if > the managers have understood those reasons and are not convinced by > them, that's the end of it. Of course. IF there has been a maintainer decision that's one thing - that's the end of it. So far, I haven't understood that. I've seen only expressions of opinion or preference. I thought the question was open for discussion, which to me invites reason, not just like/dislike votes. One user opened the question for discussion; I replied with one point of view and supporting arguments; then two maintainers replied with like/dislike opinions without reasons (AFAICT): "That's what I vote for." If that's really the extent of the discussion, so be it.