From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Eldoc mode in eval-minibuffer Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:59:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83bnz6iqtr.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390240788 31804 80.91.229.3 (20 Jan 2014 17:59:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Leo Liu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 20 18:59:54 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W5J8c-0005PB-DF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:59:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53961 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5J8b-0001zM-Jq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:59:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53389) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5J8Q-0001up-Ma for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:59:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5J8J-0000sL-CQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:59:42 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:16831) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5J8B-0000qG-Hc; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:59:27 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFsoXIQ/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kLYdxBsEtkQoDiGGcGYFegxU X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFsoXIQ/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kLYdxBsEtkQoDiGGcGYFegxU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="45407586" Original-Received: from 108-161-114-16.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([108.161.114.16]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2014 12:59:26 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 13EF76012D; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:59:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83bnz6iqtr.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:02:56 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:168793 Archived-At: > Besides the usual gripes about such prominent changes in behavior > being made during feature freeze, I don't know of such a change. AFAIK the change to eldoc installed recently was about changing the implementation of eldoc-post-insert-mode, to make it more like the normal eldoc mode. I.e. a change in implementation more than in behavior. > . Since it is not in NEWS, chances are it will never get mentioned in > the manual, which is bad for default behavior. IIUC this change in behavior was not intended. Leo, can you take a look to see what's going on? > . Why does it make sense to show this information when you eval in > the minibuffer, but not when you eval in *scratch* or in IELM? It doesn't. > The latter two sound like much better candidates for this feature. Indeed, I'd like to enable eldoc-mode by default wherever it's supported, but that's for after 24.4. > . I don't think turning this on by default in eval-minibuffer was > ever seriously discussed. The ChangeLog entry refers to an obscure > bug report, but the discussions of that bug (which I have read at > the time, as I do with all bugs) never explicitly said anything > about the effect I see. Makes me think that perhaps all this is > some mistake or unintentional consequence. The discussions were about making eldoc work in the minibuffer, not about enabling it, AFAIK. Stefan