From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: GNU Emacs raison d'etre Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 11:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <5230692c-c665-a330-7a12-e59fa25d97dd@gmail.com> <70bb51fd-447d-928c-4d69-1c9673a44471@online.de> <871rnnvmdx.fsf@red-bean.com> <87pnb7sira.fsf@red-bean.com> <83zha8tluq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v9kwi6ta.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <83wo5ccgg4.fsf@gnu.org> <87lflshxtq.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <83mu68cbbb.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7wghxdz.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87eerkgey1.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <112aecd7-8165-6cae-ef69-08d14d843841@yandex.ru> <5d158a63-7173-424c-9d9f-ce7856f1eae7@default> <0d65f8d0-90db-ebab-f51e-7bcf49852fdc@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="107905"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, andreas.roehler@online.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, kfogel@red-bean.com, homeros.misasa@gmail.com, tkk@misasa.okayama-u.ac.jp, Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Kangas , Sergey Organov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 17 20:12:51 2020 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 1jaNmN-000Rw6-1B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 20:12:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44806 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaNmM-0005da-33 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 14:12:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39946) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaNli-0005AK-I6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 14:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:35942) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaNlh-0000Qm-Ll; Sun, 17 May 2020 14:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04HI7ITh023159; Sun, 17 May 2020 18:12:05 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=Gc51SVIuU6ZBBs9L0KbV1sGV2w5zlrQf6mkTnS+AcyM=; b=vUOdTAtokvHYoc08GQiidNNMuLWEsIve20m5H4Hm+BHqLCQILqy4ReV1kSqI58bADiu0 Fnt+UYJDSYEaHh6Ty3HUYCedtCq6g61ik9R25AuSzru+Lsh5gkpzPcHQNgLNrW/bZmm5 1BZwPilDK5xIISq9iL6vs3Tqgzzh8j62VWPRYarxKdLY3rZ1VYP2uPuA945sv/gJDW34 /XUs8XWlE/0yCqv+9Z+U38UHora2wqKSJY4aYsg83vv4QkMZA6WOEMV6Mckp8RVjVz1n 5YkEgG1MfcRNfWUfw1L1c/LRyqZmBqEHwGmHTLYOueJ0TqSgGQ60UZURT/3B5+JV4+c3 bg== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3128tn3hvg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 17 May 2020 18:12:05 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04HI8wVh026465; Sun, 17 May 2020 18:12:04 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 312sxnuqyh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 17 May 2020 18:12:04 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 04HIC0WC017346; Sun, 17 May 2020 18:12:01 GMT In-Reply-To: <0d65f8d0-90db-ebab-f51e-7bcf49852fdc@yandex.ru> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4993.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9624 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=804 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=18 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005170166 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9624 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 cotscore=-2147483648 suspectscore=18 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=814 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005170166 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.85; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/17 14:12:07 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN 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:250635 Archived-At: > >>> Top positioning has either the same problem as near > >>> point (your annoyance: obscuring info) or the same > >>> problem as bottom-positioning. > >> Agreed. Top positioning might be better for other > >> reasons though. > > What reasons? >=20 > When the minibuffer is updated, and its height has to change, the > bottom-positioned minibuffer will have to move its input area up. > That's hella annoying. Is it? Doesn't annoy me, and that's what I use daily. How is it worse than a minibuffer at screen top extending its input area downward? In any case, as I said, if you can put the minibuffer at screen bottom then you can put it at screen top - user choice. There's no need to debate individual preferences or annoyances in that regard.