From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Use of minibuffer-prompt face when minibuffer is not involved Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 17:11:35 +0300 Message-ID: <83o949cc88.fsf@gnu.org> References: <<8736lmi2dg.fsf@gmail.com>> < <54cf21f3-86fa-4af4-9872-7493b44e2f6f@default>> <> <<83o949ecdc.fsf@gnu.org>> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="31039"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 11 16:24:04 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hPSuw-0007up-66 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 May 2019 16:24:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59617 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPSuv-0000qJ-7a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 May 2019 10:24:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36309) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPSqR-0004FA-Ke for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 May 2019 10:19:24 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40148) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPSix-0007n7-2n; Sat, 11 May 2019 10:11:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2677 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hPSiw-00023c-Dw; Sat, 11 May 2019 10:11:38 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Drew Adams on Sat, 11 May 2019 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:236428 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Active minibuffer is an internal detail. I wish it didn't exist at > > all, but our implementation forces us to have it. Exposing that to > > users is exactly the wrong idea. > > Active minibuffer is in _no_ way "an internal detail". You have 2 core Emacs developers disagree with you, which is a clear sign that you are wrong. > "Grave mistake"? Why do you say so? (No reason given.) I actually did give a reason, please re-read what I wrote. > We (since Emacs 22, at least) now provide two different > faces for the mode-line, to show which window is active > (selected) - which has the focus. This is very similar: > the minibuffer is a buffer in a window. No, selected window is an entirely different concept. > No argument has been given yet supporting _why_ this > should be considered "internal". Just two opinions > strongly proclaiming that it _is_ an internal detail. > Why do you think so? Read the code, and you will clearly see that.