I'd even argue that this function should be called
"minibuffer-message",
since currently minibuffer-message is only used when
(minibufferp) is non-nil.
I agree that is a natural generalization. But I agree that this name
is not very clear for the current behavior, and even less clear for
the suggested behavior.
I guess you didn't like the name "display-message" either (or co-opting the
name "message" for the wrapper function).
I think the name "minibuffer-message" is clear for its _current_ behavior -
what's unclear about it?
I can't think of a better name for this function, but I do have
an idea for a cleaner interface for the feature. Have a variable
minibuffer-message-at-end which, if t, causes `message' to
display messages this way.
Not sure I understand. The important differences between `message' and
`minibuffer-message' today are these:
- `message' exits the minibuffer (and recursive edit);
`minibuffer-message' does not
- `message' logs the message to *Messages*;
`minibuffer-message' does not
- `minibuffer-message' wraps the message in " [...]";
`message' does not
How would your suggestion relate to the first two differences?
In particular, a programmer must be able to control whether or not the
function exits the minibuffer. Today, that is done by using one or the
other: `message' or `minibuffer-message'.
How would the variable be set? Only explicitly, or would it also be set
implicitly, according to `minibufferp'? If the latter, how would a program
override that implicit behavior?
It could use the same mechanism as now; or, maybe it would
be cleaner to change the lower levels of redisplay to display
the message at the end of the minibuffer when it is selected.
Sorry, I don't understand you, here. Could you elaborate a bit?
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
