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: New multi-command facility displays in the wrong echo area. Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:12:15 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20201009163445.GB4027@ACM> <20201009203810.GC4027@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30422"; 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 Sat Oct 10 00:13:08 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 1kR0dQ-0007ou-5T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:13:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37684 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR0dP-0004hh-6b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:13:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52970) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR0cf-0004F2-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:12:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:26486) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR0cd-00058Y-7K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:12:20 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C2C4A440E81; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 60DEA440DBC; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:12:16 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1602281536; bh=gQxPxcrtFNdSZr6qIavfcG+dgBgwIBYy8Q06r9dNsjY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=InjHd49WAPL+W8cAfachI8Eoy41joUBgjPcwG20P584aHu/2GJhlNxRjjcVawB0gc wpvVDpvt2X5dUzw2z/hWyG+JwMarh8KIB3mHWwFJ8CaED5mChK2LilF6Zp5SCz5g3i 2pqJm7zD++ciMaUfL0oVquNeABXbnggY3EFqLIKLB/mOZz1N81zyrwbWHHln/pf6j3 tdleulez650oNO1fEnuCfKKVsbnCgihxhnxTHflWem/gqrCoifeLg0+hiYcOjpXMY5 WNhXFHF8THP9vYITQDT6hYfCRepTgR+8naX8NwwIKndldYN5yYs2uA7gfbw1rkT+zK /2K3xgW3X7ULg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E4DE120210; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:12:16 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20201009203810.GC4027@ACM> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2020 20:38:10 +0000") 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 = 2020/10/09 18:12:17 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:257284 Archived-At: > I still say it's wrong, but I suppose if I want it fixed, I'll have to > fix it myself. Just to clarify: I didn't mean to say that "it's been that way for so long that it must be right", but just pointing out that it's not a new problem. I have no idea how easy it is to address. Tho I think there is one way to avoid the problem: make isearch signal an error in that case. You'd get an error if isearch used a minibuffer (because it'd be a recursive minibuffer which are disallowed by default), and whether isearch uses a minibuffer or not is (to a large extent) an internal implementation detail. Stefan