From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Recent commit modifying mark-whole-buffer (master/aeb613ea95b7970e66d663ec5cba54e9ec0528fa) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:28:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87y47w5w0p.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87lh3x4dkb.fsf@gnus.org> <83wpngx69z.fsf@gnu.org> <87fuu4bo3y.fsf@gnus.org> <83inz0wprx.fsf@gnu.org> <87shy4a8d4.fsf@gnus.org> <83fuu4wnmm.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1461940188 11327 80.91.229.3 (29 Apr 2016 14:29:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stephan.Mueller@microsoft.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 29 16:29:37 2016 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 1aw9QG-0007Sq-Pw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:29:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54868 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aw9QD-0001g9-1e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:29:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60451) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aw9Q4-0001T6-07 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:29:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aw9Ps-0003qq-AI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:29:18 -0400 Original-Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:43977) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aw9Ps-0003mx-47; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:29:12 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aw9Pb-0001bi-5J; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:28:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83fuu4wnmm.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:28:01 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 80.91.224.195 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:203417 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > I didn't suggest any changes, no. The prompt is special, but it > doesn't need to be more so. Then we weren't miscommunicating. :-) When you said we might be, I misread the rest of your message. I think we have three ideas about how the minibuffer should be handled: 1) It should be as normal a buffer as possible, and we should do minimal things to distinguish between the prompt and the text (your stance). 2) We should try to make the prompt go away from (some) common commands where that makes sense (which is what Emacs does now with C-a and the mark-whole-buffer change). 3) The prompt should be a totally separate thing, not affected by any commands whatsoever (the suggestion made yesterday). 2), of course, means endless haggling of "what makes sense". I think mark-whole-buffer makes sense, but perhaps not? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no