From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Handling minibuffers in several mini-windows Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 00:56:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16538"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 10 01:57:44 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kyP39-0004Dj-Tk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 01:57:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57964 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kyP38-0005Ai-Vm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2021 19:57:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51514) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kyP2R-0004j3-DL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2021 19:56:59 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:44634 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kyP2P-0006ht-OT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2021 19:56:59 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 18443 invoked by uid 3782); 10 Jan 2021 00:56:56 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15721.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.87.33]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 01:56:56 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 27803 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Jan 2021 00:56:56 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:262829 Archived-At: Hello, Stefan On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 15:32:40 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > My proposal (which I've already implemented and tried out, though not > > published at all), is that > > (i) it should be possible to type into, and edit text in any visible > > minibuffer; > > (ii) it should be possible to terminate (by RET `exit-minibuffer') only > > the most deeply nested MB. The attempt elsewhere should display an > > error message, leaving the MBs unchanged; > > (iii) it should be possible to abort (with C-g `abort-recursive-edit'), > > any minibuffer. This will have the effect of aborting all more deeply > > nested MBs at the same time. > > What do people think about this? > (i) and (ii) look fine to me. > I haven't thought very much about (iii) but it sounds OK tho maybe > making it behave more like (ii) would be safer (but more annoying). Thanks for the reply. Having thought about it for a day, I think I'll go with (iii) anyway. I've posted a patch in the other thread, and barring any negative comments, will soon be committing it. > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).