From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Keep network security info buffers after use Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:15:53 +0200 Message-ID: <837cl5fkye.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87plz4irev.fsf@red-bean.com> <83frzufo9x.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3760"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, kfogel@red-bean.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jens Schmidt Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 23 08:17:06 2023 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 1rGwFu-0000p1-16 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 08:17:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rGwF2-00033T-W2; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 02:16:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rGwEx-0002zt-Mo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 02:16:07 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rGwEw-0001RN-Aj; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 02:16:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=dsM03qvqAKGepTO/rI1kB3xCn4MHvQHw/gUW+gHcaXE=; b=f7dsrppOlD4c 0ehPs9+n7hKcjm5BEvY3DtlLoOYcKBzB7Zig7w2CJIA6sIKWI3W8Ph4nkdr+w7eL7HWdHCtvKOZBO kwH27jGlvQKQ1FDPdrdHYWT5IKeq+3wy2hupM0qgVhqgF3gtRUM39WlIgFM/AjWm+oL4tye7+//sN 6lTIHofVPeWvPshJlalk6WaEpQaxrYWDn07cka2wMOBGnsFBBSsb5idedVrxVuNuPpnEYyiMi1c7Y 7fkAxn78pn78wKT7tfMVdskAiDgPv3uG8BuVK3vHk7hCH7jfWNKICKpWLM4MNy/e1v5YpArBhC8lG NZlNCStfIg8ciJGbvFA6ig==; In-Reply-To: (message from Jens Schmidt on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 22:58:38 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:314097 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 22:58:38 +0100 > Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Jens Schmidt > > > I agree that it could be useful in some cases. Andreas suggested a > > special command to show this information -- do you think this would be > > a good solution for this situation? > > I share Karl's opinion here that this could be too complex for the > problem at hand. Seriously? how is it more complex than what you propose below? The new command's body should basically be the same code as what you propose to add. (And adding an option not to kill the buffer, something I proposed at the beginning, is even less complex: add a defcustom, a single 'if', and an erase-buffer call.) > How about the following variation of Karl's patch, which hopefully > meets his request for simplicity and hopefully also these requests of > yours (as long as you do not count the additional multiple choice > option as something that must be revertable by option): Your proposal will cause the mini-window be resized in many cases, because your changes make the prompt wider than the (default) frame width. Thus, it will "punish" many people in many cases, although in 99% of cases this additional response is not needed. So it's a step in the wrong direction, from where I stand. I can only suggest again to use one of the alternatives proposed above. P.S. I really don't understand this insistence on the original idea that I said was unacceptable to me, where two acceptable alternatives were already suggested. Why not take one of those alternatives? why keep pushing in the direction to which I said I object?