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, 05 Jan 2021 19:48:48 -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="30546"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Gregory Heytings , Alan Mackenzie To: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 06 01:49:51 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 1kwx1L-0007rt-DL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 01:49:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55084 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwx1K-00014M-Fk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:49:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46144) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwx0P-0000N2-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:48:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:57198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwx0O-0006y7-2L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:48:53 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2629B1002B8; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:48:51 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DA01510022E; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:48:49 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1609894129; bh=VuEmZP7+2u2Xceb3B+EEkyP00R6uTzhEbg2gqcjduQU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XZ+P9xErl7l++tB1eg6ZCeL3OG7906UHY31E/wHmbzbRtZT1Q7YAzHzIfI/0rjvFT ORJCMUVGL+L7iVy2EqWZSNGRqMByP+BDslfFVrqT3EmlNqXSkf1ohaLcRx+eiSWc7J F6mHQaTC8eULX/DIcHyrrK2/O7V2DxieTs9fpHXE2kjMHOgEjMi4tJdtLid2klwWby lvuZ8EVH2JaA5EozmiYeWdXAXMr/JJF+L4km5Fc41lYpMSYG2/CV+S2vgc1jYGNnxN E78acKMO7mopohdk74I/6E9ENx94UJgjskJ3680pUjYfyNHwlHZjpL+QBeKOxtVVfh pmi8YyIkFU3lA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.243.191]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A16F7120429; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:48:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Gregory Heytings via's message of "Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:14:45 +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:262556 Archived-At: > The old behavior is indeed valuable, if only because it is an old behavior. > Emacs' stability is important. I don't see why the burden of proof that > a behavior about which virtually no Emacs user in the last twenty years > complained is not a bad one would be on me. M-x lisp-date-mode RET signaled an error in all Emacsen until now. Yet no user complained about it over all these years. Should we add a config var so users can get back the old behavior? Stefan