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: Sat, 16 May 2020 18:14:25 -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> 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="66527"; 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: Stefan Kangas , Dmitry Gutov , Sergey Organov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 17 03:15:15 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 1ja7tb-000HDH-NV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 03:15:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43880 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ja7ta-0003WV-QT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 21:15:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59802) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ja7t3-00037i-Au for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 21:14:41 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:38278) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ja7sy-0002CF-AA; Sat, 16 May 2020 21:14:40 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04H1EPev150721; Sun, 17 May 2020 01:14:32 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=9+03IWbPbPB6zdXlqgcj+znwXNlceqhseRwolhx6ca4=; b=mwy8PzCrTGoMzEiZg9NGkvF2zNtPL0Wz/WXOHpbZaJoUi2Ti2lhDuSWKlKBFEEQR6+2N JrUm3C+78cx1xmXcrgN4evvmdXXTJBDYbZdiH4xah6xwTcKwEATi25QLcSTlqP5bVRLc nInWHROPmIhWeW2Lec5PZdakNFG0QQH7+imXuA2j17o/p7xeRc/ppmTGtOfFY/PY+TWh FZLL851dSyhg/vDaB3j2EY3eV9sCqYenoJrIy/S8K+T3ZI+XcFJ2tdbnr5QvQNByibz6 JgWKVNexW6hAozCKgUs9KD8KkyjVF43sknRkq37nmxS+OcP7KXlWHKubhmjAIJxp5CNK ew== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3127kqt1g8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 17 May 2020 01:14:31 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04H1EC6D133447; Sun, 17 May 2020 01:14:31 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 312t3taqpb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 17 May 2020 01:14:31 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 04H1ERC2002428; Sun, 17 May 2020 01:14:27 GMT In-Reply-To: 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=9623 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=18 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005170009 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9623 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=18 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005170009 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.86; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2130.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/16 19:15:02 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:250537 Archived-At: > > FWIW, I use a separate minibuffer frame, which extends > > across the bottom of the screen (by default - size & > > position configurable). >=20 > I'm not convinced frames would be the best technical solution, > since they have to be handled by window managers. And that > invites headaches, not least when you add things like tiling > window managers into the mix. So Emacs shouldn't offer such a choice (OOTB) for the many window managers (most?) that are capable of putting a minibuffer frame at the bottom of your screen? Epoch (just another Emacs) did this, out of the box, in the early 90s. 30 years ago. And with no hoops to jump through (such as I jump through to get a semblance of that behavior with GNU Emacs). > > Top positioning has either the same problem as near > > point (your annoyance: obscuring info) or the same > > problem as bottom-positioning. >=20 > Agreed. Top positioning might be better for other > reasons though. What reasons? The argument that a minibuffer at the bottom of each frame is too far away from point applies equally to top of frame, no? Likewise, bottom of screen and top of screen. In any case, most window mgrs that can put a minibuffer frame at the bottom of the screen can, I'm guessing, put it at the top instead.