From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: wrapper fn for message and minibuffer-message?
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:28 -0400
Message-ID: <E1EP22e-0003DU-5Q@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <DNEMKBNJBGPAOPIJOOICEEDECNAA.drew.adams@oracle.com>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1128967798 13168 80.91.229.2 (10 Oct 2005 18:09:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:09:58 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 10 20:09:55 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EP22o-0006aT-Ud
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:06:39 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EP22o-0003We-DT
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:38 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EP22f-0003WP-Cj
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:29 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EP22e-0003WD-PS
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:29 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EP22e-0003WA-Kq
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:28 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EP22e-00067I-JL
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:28 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1EP22e-0003DU-5Q; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:28 -0400
Original-To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
In-reply-to: <DNEMKBNJBGPAOPIJOOICEEDECNAA.drew.adams@oracle.com>
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:43817
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/43817>

    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.

No.  The idea is that `message' would obey whatever the value
of `minibuffer-message-at-end' happens to be.

`minibuffer-message' could work by binding `minibuffer-message-at-end'
and calling `message'.

    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?

There is no need for one.  `minibuffer-message-at-end' would have no
effect when the minibuffer is not active.