From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Eldoc mode in eval-minibuffer Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:02:56 +0200 Message-ID: <83bnz6iqtr.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390233780 7565 80.91.229.3 (20 Jan 2014 16:03:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:03:00 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 20 17:03:08 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 1W5HJb-0006Pf-Nr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:03:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53201 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5HJb-0000Ez-AE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:03:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51135) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5HJR-00009u-Sg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:03:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5HJK-0006M7-7w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout28.012.net.il ([80.179.55.184]:45574) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5HJJ-0006Ke-W1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:50 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout28.012.net.il by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MZP00000IYVW000@mtaout28.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:03:56 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MZP003I9JAK2T00@mtaout28.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:03:56 +0200 (IST) X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.184 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:168789 Archived-At: About a week ago Emacs on trunk started turning on eldoc-mode whenever you type M-:, with the effect that a large portion of the mode line gets overwritten "displaced" by information about the forms you type into the minibuffer. Besides the usual gripes about such prominent changes in behavior being made during feature freeze, I have the following complaints: . This change doesn't seem to be mentioned in NEWS. The closest thing is this laconic note: ** Eldoc Mode works properly in the minibuffer. Good luck understanding from this that it is now turned on in the minibuffer _by_default_. It took me several minutes to figure out who or what did this to my mode line. Showing this to Emacs users, let alone newbies, is an excellent candidate for an exam whose purpose is to detect heirs to Stefan as head maintainer. . Since it is not in NEWS, chances are it will never get mentioned in the manual, which is bad for default behavior. . There doesn't seem to be any way of turning this feature off, except by setting eldoc-idle-delay to some ridiculously high value. Consequently, 'customize-changed-options' will not say a word about this new feature. That's not Emacs'y. . 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? The latter two sound like much better candidates for this feature. . 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. Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.