bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> So a minibuffer isn't affected by what happened in its previous invocation.
> Can you give a quick example?  I don't think I've
> ever noticed a minibuffer affected by what happened
> in a previous invocation.

Those problems have mostly been fixed indirectly by the introduction of
`minibuffer-inactive-mode`, which happened to kill the local variables
at the end of an activation.

Before that (i.e. in Emacs<24) there were cases where
`indent-line-function` was "inherited" from one minibuffer to the next.

The remaining problems (that is, until Alan fixed it by re-instating
fundamental-mode upon activation of a minibuffer) were those of an active
minibuffer inheriting the settings from `minibuffer-inactive-mode`.

> I thought you were saying it would be cleaner for _users_.
> My question was/is how it would be cleaner for users.

I don't think this should affect users either way (except indirectly by
the likelihood of lingering corner case bugs).

> Can I ask what's wrong with what I suggested: One mode, not two; just
> change the name and provide a helpful doc-string that covers both
> active and inactive?

What's the benefit?  Have you tried to implement it?


        Stefan