From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Q on minibuffer-message Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:28:58 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138076957 32118 80.91.229.2 (24 Jan 2006 04:29:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 24 05:29:16 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1Fnt-0002XM-GR for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:29:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1FqZ-0000Bv-3h for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:31:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F1FqP-0000BU-5l for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:31:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F1FqO-0000BH-Ly for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:31:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1FqO-0000BE-Gy; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:31:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1F1FvF-0008AF-71; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:36:49 -0500 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-16-217.inter.net.il [80.230.16.217]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DKP87876 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:28:57 +0200 (IST) Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org In-reply-to: X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:32808 gmane.emacs.devel:49476 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:10:49 -0800 > Cc: > > Someone gives you a command that has maybe 10 or 100 possible calls to > `minibuffer-message' sprinkled throughout its execution tree. You're going > to use `defadvice' to try to slice and dice away the message appearances? Or > you're going to rewrite the command, so that it uses a non-interactive > helper function or accepts a flag that controls message appearance or tests > whether it was called interactively? > > The original author intended it only as an interactive command, but you see > that you can use its functionality as is - you just want to inhibit its > messages. Are we talking about a well-written, clean function? Or are we talking about something that shouldn't have seen the light of the day? I get the impression that I'm thinking mostly about the former, while you have the latter before your mind's eyes. If it's a badly written function, then yes, I'd rewrite it, or urge the author to do so. > In other words, you are asking for a mechanism to subvert the intent > of the author of the function which calls `message'. > > Yes. It's far from atypical to reuse something in a way that was not > foreseen by the original author. Probably most reuse fits that description. A well written code doesn't need to be subverted to be reused. > In any case, `minibuffer-message-timeout' apparently has no effect > whatsoever currently: a 2-second delay is apparently hard-coded. That's a different issue, with a different solution.