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: Avoiding moving point into minibuffer prompt area Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:05:04 -0700 Message-ID: References: <200508161912.j7GJCGS01998@raven.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1124249327 31855 80.91.229.2 (17 Aug 2005 03:28:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 17 05:28:46 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5EbV-0008FA-84 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 05:28:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5Eew-0002k2-UT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:32:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E5Ebu-0001DT-KO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:29:02 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E5Ebr-0001CZ-TY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:29:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5EbQ-0000g2-1C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:28:32 -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 1E5EUQ-0007JS-0W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:21:18 -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 j7H356Zm011477 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:05:06 -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 j7H355YE008276 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:05:05 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dhcp-amer-csvpn-gw2-141-144-73-42.vpn.oracle.com [141.144.73.42]) by rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with SMTP id j7H355MK008263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:05:05 -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: <200508161912.j7GJCGS01998@raven.dms.auburn.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 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:42162 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:42162 On a related subject, and being a bit nit-picky - does anyone else think that these things should be harmonized & better documented? - Neither the Emacs manual nor the Emacs-Lisp manual contains the word "inviolable". - Both manuals refer to the "intangible" property. - Is "intangible" not the same property as what Customize refers to as "inviolable"? More precisely, isn't the "intangible" property what makes the minibuffer-prompt area "inviolable"? - If so, wouldn't it be better to stick to the same term, whichever we choose? Especially since "inviolable" conveys no more meaning to the uninitiated than "intangible" - nothing is gained by using it, except another layer of obfuscation. Of the two terms, "intangible" is more accurate, IMO. Someone will perhaps reply that "inviolable" applies to the minibuffer-prompt area, indicating that it cannot be entered ("violated"), while "intangible" is the corresponding text property of that area. Even so, I think more would be gained by using the same term ("intangible") in Customize. That would help users make the link with all of the doc that describes the characteristics of the "intangible" property.