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: Stop frames stealing eachothers' minibuffers! Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:52:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: <0d14bfc4-8e8e-d3b9-e0e1-ee4bf2e6449d@gmx.at> <20201125210947.GB8228@ACM> <50c96c83-01b4-d2b8-ff90-82c9d706e268@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24727"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 06 16:53:36 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 1kxB7v-0006AK-S4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:53:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37482 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxB7u-0008Qe-P7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:53:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42396) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxB6r-0007DB-Dv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:52:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:32936) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxB6n-0004gc-UR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:52:28 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AFA7B8090B; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 10:52:23 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 544848081E; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 10:52:22 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1609948342; bh=dhwXLaMZY1FCNk1Lg+EpJz+wc1VZDvLLxgW2Q88ArgI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=K6h40t485tbB6ddC2wsxuFEVoalsD2tVijoJBGAvRWBiWWmRqF3xYsklCBwjaA17Z D43nFu/bBt5caaLV8pf+U7RvPsp+Xop0rilY5tMbVqYbBVXBzOuaiae8GpY21xTZJO gSmZjcUwoJEBZb9djEzHNz828jFl8EppHve+EyXsuSSU4BlNNWi3ErYwPgnVzXEiPt J/sBLre9JLvomVJJPTGz9WFbArX/YARLPwghJlck3+3j+t5z2UWwpqHyOI2dub7pW+ TOxQ6Xyf5sR/v8CKFa+XxAxQlA7Ka3Ko2C0ymxil0Imo890dS+Melgh15tpKtymc9w 8we3BPOKhS+yw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.72.224.181]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B5D5120408; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 10:52:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Gregory Heytings's message of "Wed, 06 Jan 2021 09:40:36 +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:262609 Archived-At: > I think you meant "lisp-data-mode". Indeed. > I'm not sure you are teasing me, so: No, I'm just pointing out that even such an "obviously nothing but a new feature" implies a change in old behavior. The same applies to the most obvious "bug fixes" and to basically every single commit we ever apply. Even adding a config var to recover the old behavior is itself a change in old behavior. So your rule is simply inapplicable. You seem to think it's obvious to distinguish between a change in behavior and a bug fix or a new feature or other categories, and while in many cases it is, there are also many cases where it's not and *that* is the reason why we sometimes introduce a change without a clean way to recover the old behavior: we failed to recognize that it wasn't just a bug fix or a plain improvement. New rules won't help. Stefan