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: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:25:21 -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 1128893207 5170 80.91.229.2 (9 Oct 2005 21:26:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 21:26:47 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 09 23:26:45 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EOig2-0007t6-5O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:25:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EOig1-0005Jz-6R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:25:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EOifq-0005Ju-Gm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:25:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EOifp-0005Jf-Vh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:25:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EOifp-0005Jc-OI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:25:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [148.87.122.32] (helo=rgminet03.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EOifp-0008DZ-Mv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:25:37 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.50]) by rgminet03.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j99LPREc009911 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:25:28 -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 j99LPRsd018307 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:25:27 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dhcp-amer-whq-csvpn-gw3-141-144-81-89.vpn.oracle.com [141.144.81.89]) by rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with SMTP id j99LPQ9h018297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:25:27 -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:43754 Archived-At: I still have the same question: Would the variable also be set to non-nil implicitly, whenever `minibufferp'? (That was the behavior I originally suggested: use `minibuffer-message' when the minibuffer is active.) That is certainly not what I have in mind. These are both useful operations in the minibuffer. The individual command would bind `minibuffer-message-at-end' to non-nil when it wants the message to appear at the end of the minibuffer. Do you mean that low-level redisplay would, in effect, use `minibuffer-message' when the minibuffer is active and `message' otherwise? No, it would implement the behavior of `minibuffer-message' when `minibuffer-message-at-end' is non-nil. OK. If I understand you correctly, you would keep functions `message' and `minibuffer-message' as they are now. You would not eliminate either function. The former's default behavior would use nil for `minibuffer-message-at-end'; the latter would use non-nil. The only change you would make would be to introduce the variable, so that a user could bind `minibuffer-message-at-end' to flip the behavior of either function from its default behavior. When `minibuffer-message-at-end' is nil, the minibuffer content is temporarily replaced by the message (as is done today by `message'); when it is non-nil, the content remains, and the message is appended to it. You are not interested in any wrapper function that uses the minibuffer state (active or inactive) to determine the `minibuffer-message-at-end' behavior. Is that correct? I ask because it's still not clear to me what you propose. You said that the variable allowed a "cleaner interface for the feature", and I thought the feature in question was the one I originally suggested: using the minibuffer state to determine the `minibuffer-message-at-end' behavior.