From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: wrapper fn for message and minibuffer-message? Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:52:47 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1128616249 25576 80.91.229.2 (6 Oct 2005 16:30:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 06 18:30:47 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ENYav-0003ng-DQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:27:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ENYau-00011r-9a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:27:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ENYak-00011d-KS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:27:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ENYaj-00010p-2q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:27:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ENYai-00010l-WC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:27:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [148.87.122.31] (helo=rgminet02.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1ENYaj-0007Sp-46 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:27:33 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.50]) by rgminet02.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j96GRQdQ026904 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:27:26 -0600 Original-Received: from rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j96Fqmsp003779 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:52:48 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dradams-lap.us.oracle.com [130.35.177.126]) by rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with SMTP id j96FqlU5003767 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:52:47 -0600 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Importance: Normal X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:43615 Archived-At: I'd even argue that this function should be called "minibuffer-message", since currently minibuffer-message is only used when (minibufferp) is non-nil. I agree that is a natural generalization. But I agree that this name is not very clear for the current behavior, and even less clear for the suggested behavior. I guess you didn't like the name "display-message" either (or co-opting the name "message" for the wrapper function). I think the name "minibuffer-message" is clear for its _current_ behavior - what's unclear about it? I can't think of a better name for this function, but I do have an idea for a cleaner interface for the feature. Have a variable minibuffer-message-at-end which, if t, causes `message' to display messages this way. Not sure I understand. The important differences between `message' and `minibuffer-message' today are these: - `message' exits the minibuffer (and recursive edit); `minibuffer-message' does not - `message' logs the message to *Messages*; `minibuffer-message' does not - `minibuffer-message' wraps the message in " [...]"; `message' does not How would your suggestion relate to the first two differences? In particular, a programmer must be able to control whether or not the function exits the minibuffer. Today, that is done by using one or the other: `message' or `minibuffer-message'. How would the variable be set? Only explicitly, or would it also be set implicitly, according to `minibufferp'? If the latter, how would a program override that implicit behavior? It could use the same mechanism as now; or, maybe it would be cleaner to change the lower levels of redisplay to display the message at the end of the minibuffer when it is selected. Sorry, I don't understand you, here. Could you elaborate a bit?