[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: messages override minibuffer input
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: messages override minibuffer input |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:05:43 -0400 |
You have found plenty of justification for adding `optional-message'.
> You can write Lisp code to do the same things now done at C level. We
> could also turn that C code into a subr, if that is useful.
True, but how should client code request it? I can't add an optional
argument to `optional-message' and have it work like `message' now, of
course.
Is it right for clients to have to request it?
I think it should be controlled by a user option, that's all.
- Re: messages override minibuffer input, (continued)
- Re: messages override minibuffer input, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/23
- Re: messages override minibuffer input, Stefan Monnier, 2007/09/24
- Re: messages override minibuffer input, Davis Herring, 2007/09/24
- RE: messages override minibuffer input, Drew Adams, 2007/09/24
- Re: messages override minibuffer input, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/25
Re: messages override minibuffer input, Davis Herring, 2007/09/10
Re: messages override minibuffer input, Johannes Weiner, 2007/09/12
Re: messages override minibuffer input, Davis Herring, 2007/09/12