[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying |
Date: |
Thu, 30 May 2019 14:00:27 -0700 (PDT) |
> > I haven't been following this thread. But it looks
> > like this will use `minibuffer-message' for errors
> > raised during minibuffer input, and block `message',
> > except for logging. Is that right?
>
> No, it won't block messages.
It will block `message', not messages. It will hijack
`message' to effect instead `minibuffer-message'.
That's not right or fair. Code that calls `message'
should get `message' behavior.
> It will display messages together with the minibuffer contents
> instead of replacing it.
Which means that code that _intends_ `message'
behavior, which does (temporarily) replace your
input in the minibuffer, no longer does that.
No way around it - `message' just gets hijacked.
It is so _easy_ for any code to explicitly call
`minibuffer-message' when it wants that effect.
But now you want to make it impossible for code
that calls `message' to get `message' behavior.
Not needed and not the right thing. You're
impoverishing Emacs behavior by replacing two
possible behaviors with one.
> Currently it requires the user to wait 2 seconds
> before the user can see the minibuffer contents again.
No, it does not. User input cancels the `message'
text. And this is during an overall input reading,
remember? And code that calls `message' can invoke
`(message nil)' to also cancel the `message' text
at _any_ time it deems appropriate. There is no
mandatory 2-sec wait, such as you suggest.
> Most often, this happens after typing M-n to see if any default values
> are available, and it replaces the minibuffer contents with the message
> “End of history; no default available”.
If you think there is a _particular_ context or
use of `message' that is problematic then fix that.
What you're proposing/doing instead is smashing
with a sledgehammer.
> I have to wait several times
> per day for this message to go away. Totally it takes ~1 minute per day,
> ~300 minutes (5 hours) per year, and ~50 hours per decade - this is
> a whole workweek of just looking at the message and waiting for Godot.
Ridiculous exaggeration. I use `M-n' all the time
and have never had to wait like that.
This is a bad idea. If you want to let users opt
in to such a reduction in behaviors then fine, please
do create a user option that lets them opt in for that.
No one will have a problem with that.
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Juri Linkov, 2019/05/19
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Dmitry Gutov, 2019/05/24
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Juri Linkov, 2019/05/27
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Dmitry Gutov, 2019/05/27
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Juri Linkov, 2019/05/29
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Drew Adams, 2019/05/29
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Juri Linkov, 2019/05/30
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying,
Drew Adams <=
- bug#34939: Some minibuffer behaviour is annoying, Juri Linkov, 2019/05/30