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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:18:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20201031194419.GC5887@ACM> <834kmago8m.fsf@gnu.org> <20201031203914.GD5887@ACM> <835z6ogc1h.fsf@gnu.org> <20201101195313.GA6190@ACM> <83sg9rd6cp.fsf@gnu.org> <20201102185147.GC7297@ACM> <83mtzzd0s3.fsf@gnu.org> <20201103210853.GA21923@ACM> <83ft5pax2p.fsf@gnu.org> <20201104173954.GA14535@ACM> <83v9ed3nbw.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28625"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , enometh@meer.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrii Kolomoiets Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 00:19:57 2020 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 1kccvb-0007Mx-Vi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:19:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51028 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kccvb-00012r-2S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:19:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50028) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kccuY-0000Xd-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:18:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:28465) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kccuU-0003oj-Ng; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:18:48 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DAED54414DC; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:18:44 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6AF2B4412F1; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:18:39 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1605050319; bh=HIIPeBp/6YqWmedNqlnCpCi+6rY+2z+wneRF1I7xJGg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZXl9f7Kbx4FTVixrwnZ/i81p1cgU6Qi/VYCuDM79Z0sqISNmkY6MHTRhdlsDLsUmE 8APGsoi+JNCCVr1sWVzAHfGQ1MIzuPb30vMVfbiBjUkHk+aIXirLsMZMEcgb7M3fk9 cTznes+sdLA7PCHOyHVrg8M3+QZo9axRrIDz47rODFw6gRFULHCEpZa1nc9ox8U6O3 sEc6WIjYKTDU3Uk5Q1Y9FtadPQdu8trQleCStJuD8Fyumr+vsmAh5UIcR4Jladcng4 rg9gfwFP19W1ixnQxv5xXYl+ZIrJ07ZzdAz3XacOWViKYHRKTBUcxCjlHgcks0Dypp EoAmJEtD5dcng== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EADD9120230; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:18:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Andrii Kolomoiets's message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:54:35 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/10 18:18:45 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:258999 Archived-At: >> I think the reason is that it more closely mimics what happens with the >> echo area and it arguably (philosophically) better matches the default >> setting of `enable-recursive-minibuffers`. > Maybe I'm missing something, but the message "Command attempted to use > minibuffer while in minibuffer" is displayed in other frame, just like > in Emacs 27. I'm not sure which scenario you're referring to. What I was referring to is the fact that if you do `M-: (message "hello") RET`, the "hello" message subsequently follows the selected frame (until it gets replaced by another message or erased by command that doesn't emit any message). > Probably the better solution will be to not take the minibuffer away > from minibuffer-only frames. After all, it's all they got :) Personally I philosophically like the (non-default) nil setting for the new variable, so that minibuffers stick to the frame where they presumably operate. But since my Emacs only has a single mini window anyway, I'm never affected by this setting at all, so I don't have any real experience either way. Stefan