From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Handling minibuffers in several mini-windows Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:32:40 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19437"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 08 21:34:15 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kxySc-0004wf-BT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 21:34:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43182 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxySb-00013z-Ea for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:34:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58432) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxyRG-0000Vv-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:32:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:31001) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxyRA-0002Wg-Uw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:32:49 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9BC94100250; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:32:43 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 53A1F100225; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:32:42 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1610137962; bh=bCB2papAOko0yIDYZX8ub/3OqHtcguijjnkNSFiNBkE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=o/aeSk0UJAvZjGO1EzxgsusQmjxYsGjFYKbkfXu1n+/JQaIsrlbolCh+fPzWH7CZT pRquyA7uzjWdo6LSGPDFFhb+iYBZ7Z4U4FhB+XlQokQQwj7l4HOTuzj9u52lxVDjZI kMBKXrfgfZ7EytbKl0zaVrxe3PWOvh7VG1JBaD/ExdchCWFHKH1qGsB+Xu7d/ICTjR zlxkcS0wAYhtKxUmoCN4ay2OftHC+2PTPiAtn84gi8SoqgwslotIuX703r5S8uCVtD G4196BQ5GUSAZqGCsj67AZkntWF33tVOZ9MSF4JS8EXrLq6bPyTTnqmFXaBy0wZty/ NdYFJZyF4YOWA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.72.224.181]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3CB6120340; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:32:41 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:54:03 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:262774 Archived-At: > My proposal (which I've already implemented and tried out, though not > published at all), is that > (i) it should be possible to type into, and edit text in any visible > minibuffer; > (ii) it should be possible to terminate (by RET `exit-minibuffer') only > the most deeply nested MB. The attempt elsewhere should display an > error message, leaving the MBs unchanged; > (iii) it should be possible to abort (with C-g `abort-recursive-edit'), > any minibuffer. This will have the effect of aborting all more deeply > nested MBs at the same time. > > What do people think about this? (i) and (ii) look fine to me. I haven't thought very much about (iii) but it sounds OK tho maybe making it behave more like (ii) would be safer (but more annoying). Stefan