From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: filling inside minibuffer behaves poorly Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:37:01 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87ejsoxlu4.fsf@enterprisedb.com> <87zmb9bci3.fsf@stark.xeocode.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 1162622354 22574 80.91.229.2 (4 Nov 2006 06:39:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 06:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gsstark@mit.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 04 07:39:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgFB6-0008Er-Cv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 07:38:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgFB5-0003Xk-Us for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:38:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GgF9K-0002MZ-QQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GgF9K-0002MJ-BO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgF9K-0002MG-8B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GgF9K-0001kM-8q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1GgF9J-0003Lc-Ap; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:37:01 -0500 Original-To: Gregory Stark In-reply-to: <87zmb9bci3.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> (message from Gregory Stark on 02 Nov 2006 19:27:32 -0500) 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:61743 Archived-At: I understand your concern and I'm sure I'm in a pretty small minority with this problem. But the more I think about it I can't think of any situation where you wouldn't want this behaviour. After all minibuffer prompts are for inputing text that's going _somewhere_ and the prompt isn't going to be going with it. That seems like a good argument, except for one thing: in most cases the text isn't going anywhere that you'd care about filling, so the main purpose of filling would be to make it look nice in the minibuffer. And it looks nicer in the minibuffer the old way. The appearance of the text in the minibuffer is clearly secondary to its appearance in real use. So if both issues arose equally often, I'd say that the latter wins. But what if the latter issue only arises in a few commands, and the former can arise for all commands? Maybe then the existing code is better. I am not sure how to judge this, and I wonder what others think.