RE: Use of minibuffer-prompt face when minibuffer is not involved

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

>   > > Active minibuffer is in _no_ way "an internal detail".
> 
>   > You have 2 core Emacs developers disagree with you, which 
>   > is a clear sign that you are wrong.
> 
> That question is a matter of judgment, not objective fact.

It's an objective fact that the minibuffer being used for
input is observably different behavior from reading input
in other ways (e.g. `read-char').

If users can perceive different behavior then the
difference is not just an internal detail.  I don't think
that's a matter of judgment or opinion.

There may be implementation matters to consider, but that
doesn't change the fact that the behaviors are different
for _users_.

And anyway, no particular implementation matters were
presented for discussion.  There was only an invitation
to "see the code" (which?).
 
> If this were a question of objective fact, the maintainers could
> conceivably be objectively wrong, and someoe else objectively right.
> Such things are unusual, but they do happen.

What is "this"?  The question posed was whether
non-minbuffer prompts should have a face, and if so,
which face.  Everyone has so far agreed on that.

And yes, _that's_ a question of opinion/judgment.
Normally when such questions are raised here reasons
are given to support opinions, and ultimately the
maintainers decide/judge.

> But there is no objectively right in a question like this.  The
> maintainers have to go by _their_ best judgment.  Others who disagree
> can try to show good reasons for judging things differently; but if
> the managers have understood those reasons and are not convinced by
> them, that's the end of it.

Of course.  IF there has been a maintainer decision
that's one thing - that's the end of it.  So far, I
haven't understood that.

I've seen only expressions of opinion or preference.
I thought the question was open for discussion, which
to me invites reason, not just like/dislike votes.

One user opened the question for discussion; I replied
with one point of view and supporting arguments; then
two maintainers replied with like/dislike opinions
without reasons (AFAICT): "That's what I vote for."

If that's really the extent of the discussion, so be it.