From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Daniel Colascione Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.174292914516204 (code B ref -1); Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:00:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Mar 2025 18:59:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40021 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9UO-0004DH-T4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:59:05 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:51476) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9UC-0004CO-O9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9U5-0000gs-0x for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:45 -0400 Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9Ty-0003fp-GE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=cAzQbSSwVoluvKvsPgqd0ER8Ts/3+mJ/zBqHwGLI+/A=; b=raHoch14dBBTXF9vsABcskhfNj KvKx9TLKUmYb+Sc+8pOZ08g2o2E5KPT2ZfdxqJGL3zyYOBSChKvF0czhC2pSMvyqpMQlNYTI9em0l 4LpP2thbtHS/4yYaGPGTIXdM4Xa0XRWOD5g4qi8trFs81HKZ25HkBmvrP/liBkCOKCVLsr0KCeSE3 ix/q/HIs+Lu9vOo5QeHamumrOU+PoKjy/S+zudohEwCeHcFtyrInHtpCPEo2apXv6TgQf+IL7hlWW egbbe3o2J7hD/QHbFAjx8JcQ9X63paRmyvaJW0gJaBC1C6WHWpxPtzWIiG0NmK6l9zWHq0kZadgBg epd8S9BA==; Received: from dancol by dancol.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9TZ-0041f4-0d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:13 -0400 From: Daniel Colascione User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.8; emacs 31.0.50 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1; envelope-from=dancol@dancol.org; helo=dancol.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some of them. From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:26:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Daniel Colascione , Stefan Monnier Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.17430099209218 (code B ref 77257); Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:26:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Mar 2025 17:25:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44229 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txUVD-0002OJ-LS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:25:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40278) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txUVB-0002Iy-4L for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:25:17 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1txUV4-0003Tu-A9; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:25:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=86qQLMWS9pb2qapN10lJlLeen+abKvIq9aG/fFGUvaQ=; b=EpybFSbW+kjs uM2rjonprYmNfT1Szvt+LbEE5l6AudC+8G/O/xCxZPlprOCiDW3vZ3f7yAKnX7erf1yuM5SONSd4v 3jtodzjHLI/BAgg4FcLKR2VBlKyxQMMd5fAf1GiAjZiVcOtLuq7eYrt0MEDblsNhzyhMuCMCSCApu q9MEFH74w2sX5oNryzpBsleI9NseU9eG5EinKV4AM3A0cXV1uSnKhrKq176q4RsyFplQBxOAjpOK4 0x0I3GaH/BCAzfaAaO+wEHvkbMXrYHxb0H9mFnevtN0pkDOXgMMJ/n0TWbh/u9fvjmwOmC+7gajz/ b/EpcB9FyKFhEoAOROgSNw==; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:25:06 +0200 Message-Id: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400) References: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Daniel Colascione > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 > > > (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing > the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be > preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some > of them. If we disable clearing the echo area in that case, should we also refrain from running echo-area-clear-hook? Stefan, do you see any potential problems in inhibiting clearing of the echo area when inhibit-message is bound to a non-nil value? From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:22:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Daniel Colascione , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.1743016883674 (code B ref 77257); Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:22:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Mar 2025 19:21:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44436 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txWJW-0000An-Vp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:21:23 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:28447) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txWJT-0000AX-Qo for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:21:20 -0400 Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E11CE100066; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:21:12 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1743016872; bh=0h2HqRjg3wLN4tTNT1rJG30SK1II+J6AWWCAAmfbBrE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=bwkAhHDWL4NyNlZj6PClrgxvo333JQqBmHZ7Vcq64qMZH7PIe9zHiKDTDgeK2K7Kk akrmyJQrm+wpcs6P5ii//4GGTMViQeRvE6hJd/pGFQcqCtGUc0RnTU3s0d6zBRiN5/ IxceGVt/b5CN5UYxAEY7xUcnROERKH8ykiD/b0EzfAupCPNb96szrLl9bPmA4ypE5r AWChdos45x0cdBG5RzCPvFKUXlblnmM6Ys7Owo5bCtKERxSPylAH6ywZ57ACEBcZK7 FVrz1MhaqAg5ZdNtXBFJTgGdXiFSjNWqVp/F/ULjTsndufV5KA0KX08+XXs1lUXKip yYkVxm82oGXFw== Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3B369100040; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B131120444; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:21:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:25:06 +0200") Message-ID: References: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:21:03 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.110 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) >> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing >> the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be >> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some >> of them. > > If we disable clearing the echo area in that case, should we also > refrain from running echo-area-clear-hook? > > Stefan, do you see any potential problems in inhibiting clearing of > the echo area when inhibit-message is bound to a non-nil value? I'm not sufficiently familiar with the internals of `message` to have a firm opinion, but it seems to make sense to inhibit *all* the effects. Stefan From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Ship Mints Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:41:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Monnier Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Colascione , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.17430180234753 (code B ref 77257); Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:41:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Mar 2025 19:40:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44458 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txWbv-0001Ea-2t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:40:23 -0400 Received: from mail-vk1-xa29.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::a29]:46219) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txWbr-0001A5-I2 for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:40:21 -0400 Received: by mail-vk1-xa29.google.com with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-523ffbe0dbcso240988e0c.0 for <77257@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:40:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1743018014; x=1743622814; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iT5JAqaTGRt4z02fbcgRTS1L+2d4KtEtQJRA7yXV3JM=; b=m0cZJFV3dowMJPG3lOUo+5C6j3GWDgiIhuH5/s4A4PjlixWyPIext4tkrBrrKpJk0a btpLRwfGw2LorfLhl4tz1NTt9UejmsqFSf0Wbjhucd5v4ja6xL5Abj31BqOdjPeepkyD Owlvshkhq+5/gQnEu4l1UfuQ/No8dLWersykrOhlV/22900qOAxqV4qeA5HXY6Ca5JdZ i4zXK3KDRWbgNf3lRaPnNwz+hpIerlY6YVyGWkE4Nyxp5KWsFBTZ/rfnVNiJRQiOH9kX b5EhjzlpSSV2iBis1PcT3tYDUqFg6IAStQhivs0aTIor6Jk3M4nmY7RuT3u4aQq48s1u j6JQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1743018014; x=1743622814; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=iT5JAqaTGRt4z02fbcgRTS1L+2d4KtEtQJRA7yXV3JM=; b=gUd7KdYuR3G2rr0ZI2rfqg/A7GtUFUyz36IJ3YchJG5ArgZItJCHWMRlbtL0s2fTtO chFRN97aLUoTaBuL6DPaCxBVBp5TF/p6isBV9lVTdLyhZQqfMPlgduNim+1YH7nf3beW w7EekcrlcnQ4x1gBE2cAMI5tSsKlR1jTzItghA4NlOyL0PKEOOGeJctLjOlD7Lgw5ZyG 4GklaVtm2SInP+QFhnf+J29dXBiQnQ4xEHrCFLI+ILnDqhJ4N38bRo7kKiVa18APSWG5 91VgnftxmK/UST8of5DLQwjmJHusxi62LIF3LsiX90O4W0UQUmb/FqlSqLon5ZyhX5Yd seyA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVEyDsY1V6IvcYjv25mPjRt+QdFf87sQBd35bXgwrB725IqTMzywtX1OL4glTt/Bunm2pzp4w==@debbugs.gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxn9Oga+49K0gy6TzhkLIUJXOfe0GyRp16etqL5gu9dhi9SuLDB rmhZCu9lNVfhXc0R5W2GSTw47VknxMwuTuKrtkZH4tcIYTTeBYjQaINqDq/WLXc19f6b1u4MzFe 7+meNy9ZKo/MJSrnCNcKKRsXr4M4= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsOlg+kUjA4hUzIpKx0IBfVpAgEJuBSi3v56D5ELkel84xmDJfi2wsuC4etqfA 9YZC7EtRpouterPRsvIcOliud8bhKe4hZUoqwXnlQrODGpTzVQ4ZSKd5CEYtibFhF54AKy8TzT2 XVkcGQeTJyxeDEmujlCEbZ0U6yiA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IExhjiLeHqWtfeee8+CKBDHOT1p8XmuxLNn4SPBlyihwctsfHATi84R7UTcP08HJcTsHv97R/Gk0MtE5a6Vqgs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:f92:b0:4c1:9bdb:6188 with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4c586fa8feemr1578420137.13.1743018013590; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:40:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: From: Ship Mints Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:40:02 -0400 X-Gm-Features: AQ5f1Jr1S8VXVuzNcTeswfc15DiIOuo_P6Hfeaa3UlctS1ROPGT40Z5gKyN3cHg Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000089914106314401e1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --00000000000089914106314401e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 3:22=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for = GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors wrote: > >> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearin= g > >> the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be > >> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some > >> of them. > > > > If we disable clearing the echo area in that case, should we also > > refrain from running echo-area-clear-hook? > > > > Stefan, do you see any potential problems in inhibiting clearing of > > the echo area when inhibit-message is bound to a non-nil value? > > I'm not sufficiently familiar with the internals of `message` to have > a firm opinion, but it seems to make sense to inhibit *all* the effects. > I bind (message-log-max nil) when I want message to be super quiet. --00000000000089914106314401e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
= On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 3:22=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for = GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> wrote:
>> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "bl= ah")) has the effect of clearing
>> the echo area.=C2=A0 I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-messag= e to be
>> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some >> of them.
>
> If we disable clearing the echo area in that case, should we also
> refrain from running echo-area-clear-hook?
>
> Stefan, do you see any potential problems in inhibiting clearing of > the echo area when inhibit-message is bound to a non-nil value?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the internals of `message` to have a firm opinion, but it seems to make sense to inhibit *all* the effects.

I bind=C2=A0(message-log-max nil) when I want message to be = super quiet.
--00000000000089914106314401e1-- From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:13:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ship Mints Cc: dancol@dancol.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.17430559408358 (code B ref 77257); Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:13:01 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Mar 2025 06:12:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46922 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txgTS-0002Aa-RW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 02:12:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53402) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txgTP-000293-GM for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 02:12:17 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1txgTI-0000On-KC; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 02:12:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=3srJ1xI4E+3NtH37dQio3Nm5st2BeVhvURdtzo49hNY=; b=Lrt9McqwbaYjMaFYrg1s w5KbVBNxqkPIOgowZOWFdTwBgAN6ut1DENDeBWQBO9r5xp5RQwvr/CACHG91sh1uiqyLAGOOBAtTb xeTlPSeUnRCM8cCwDI47uChYVxnQ+SLTCIYrHiW3PG3GLZ2EkhrVg4+EqutT3xm23QA9YAmlHUkPo Z90bD4jXjlo0M4K+gob415/SHSX6nQEoCMb7W3II4r+BeK2e0iYYJh830GNstoE6PROyvL8qxD3uR tm6kukPSPznVqCNQ8FVDx7p3SzK1UX7xSYFRPmNcOGDxqpiQMYbd0QPw6yFui5iGpVDAniCB3XIti Muvn7Weid02FSg==; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:12:04 +0200 Message-Id: <86o6xnc897.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (message from Ship Mints on Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:40:02 -0400) References: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Ship Mints > Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:40:02 -0400 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Colascione , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 3:22 PM Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of > text editors wrote: > > >> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing > >> the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be > >> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some > >> of them. > > > > If we disable clearing the echo area in that case, should we also > > refrain from running echo-area-clear-hook? > > > > Stefan, do you see any potential problems in inhibiting clearing of > > the echo area when inhibit-message is bound to a non-nil value? > > I'm not sufficiently familiar with the internals of `message` to have > a firm opinion, but it seems to make sense to inhibit *all* the effects. > > I bind (message-log-max nil) when I want message to be super quiet. That's unrelated: it controls the logging of messages in the *Messages* buffer, not their display. Binding inhibit-message non-nil doesn't affect the logging in *Messages* in any way, nor should it. From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Daniel Colascione Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: dick.r.chiang@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.174308099015040 (code B ref 77257); Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Mar 2025 13:09:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48177 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txmzU-0003uJ-8u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:09:49 -0400 Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]:59198) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txmzQ-0003tL-Q6 for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:09:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=pidYiE7tycLVVJU/bFBaGOvV2QkHTLc5ciTBzQZJIe8=; b=b5bYkJjRksqZdfC0DBPBtjcjtH 3Dclsy6i4x4mOQqYjxZibrk7F2BoWAqM7OWrwSz9dpvxzX7ujz293cd/VB8hYY/va9LmLuuSgdS+p Xkl5CMnE6hFFZ4aIz91Ns8tdRakn/rGhwzKhC74WgUfg4JVviPMbutPwPbpYqQ1aqX3betAVSoYdH 61uAaOsE7GWqfVp56DWjm6gchiFALBYtw356F6TzW7CpSgSplPA2tu6fXfPFwwya/2gsiCIlSelHx yNBTv/39Gi1WtLczyIBnFocMsNzR7JMcF6q2agQlgzoXerN39KknO/wMyTwU3iPhQ7XV+SLhkvA5y LepC3PGA==; Received: from 2603-9001-4203-1ab2-0bc7-4b3b-8dee-a94c.inf6.spectrum.com ([2603:9001:4203:1ab2:bc7:4b3b:8dee:a94c]:33012 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1txmyv-004D3v-35; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:09:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:09:34 -0400 From: Daniel Colascione User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <87pli2achf.fsf@dick> References: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> <87pli2achf.fsf@dick> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) On March 27, 2025 8:23:40 AM EDT, dick=2Er=2Echiang@gmail=2Ecom wrote: >I'm afraid the 2022 maintainer's edict takes priority: > >"No documentation promised that the previous message will not be >cleared when inhibit-message is set=2E We just avoid displaying new >messages=2E" > >https://debbugs=2Egnu=2Eorg/cgi/bugreport=2Ecgi?bug=3D58788 Thanks for digging that up=2E I'd suggest revisiting that resolution=2E Th= e no-visible-effect behavior is more useful and intuitive than what we have= now, and I'm having an hard time seeing how fixing this bug would break an= ything=2E From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:56:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Daniel Colascione Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.17430837559993 (code B ref 77257); Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:56:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Mar 2025 13:55:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49789 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txni7-0002ao-1N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:55:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54334) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txni4-0002So-1U for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:55:52 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1txnhx-0008Vc-7E; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:55:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=ReE3koNv5m13BGtpxglkV8Qx4B1YN1HMclp4akK5xeY=; b=rKU4LJR/a1Dp ORIuAKsK/u3Wvi9AL8cUuvrjEi55+rXd7EWBrai49EAehYG44Odk/X4t1cdPeEkTY9uPE0qeqejiK MfYNzUA70ZmNFlaXQNlKs5ESrS38FdYoG7vrxERyKFo/AySRdifENPjg7IxhJa2aAnwgXA5f/VDBS eKuikAFpcYxOkTi7GouCgLcBXaz+6iXc01S3zfthWXCeHVPmrHO/7r9JXOft7WDUYeq21NA/AywE7 AYnIY6LHQ907wMCquKmxl+EoKHREFxLS+nfmd1iRQpddurLpeAZHByXblBK8wdUikPQLx4aqMu4jH oiR4WEj5ulSDsbIrBOJXqw==; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:55:41 +0200 Message-Id: <861puid1cy.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:09:34 -0400) References: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> <87pli2achf.fsf@dick> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:09:34 -0400 > From: Daniel Colascione > CC: Stefan Monnier , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > On March 27, 2025 8:23:40 AM EDT, dick.r.chiang@gmail.com wrote: > >I'm afraid the 2022 maintainer's edict takes priority: > > > >"No documentation promised that the previous message will not be > >cleared when inhibit-message is set. We just avoid displaying new > >messages." > > > >https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=58788 > > Thanks for digging that up. I'd suggest revisiting that resolution. I hope you read everything I wrote in https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=58788#13, not just the above small part of it, which was picked selectively to make a point. From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Daniel Colascione Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:28:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: dick.r.chiang@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.174308563830372 (code B ref 77257); Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:28:03 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Mar 2025 14:27:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50700 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txoCT-0007th-SM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:27:18 -0400 Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]:45424) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1txoCQ-0007tK-1E for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:27:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0V6qdkAKUYfDuF3TFDSyLoGvZTI4zlTE00KgAV/GqjE=; b=PCGYGnQD+6ZFRErmfwyu/GaU3w H3QoJ72sz88VHx8PVcCHn+Fg7eyxZs6qYPyZWIcjBN9OLVyeMfAyO0cujAzyNpdZdEFE9DbVJOAds jMTBO5oXZHOONDjP46G6bwOd/E/GX9KEHu6K1He7IhFTrZufR9l2azSyL/I9RheoFlXEY4ilvzkDh dpi7LSxlhVonLyPonssWTwtCmIZQpbn7uNVlGNar6KcJ2JrxlSWv6MHiu7Op1GC/gXrlA4J/upS1Y txI26Ig4/+dnAIu6zHID3scVWebbe6UbcYlR1IzaRpugB9LJ5tHu6UiZHCVOApTJd++z7UVsv5fmN MNbo2mvg==; Received: from 2603-9001-4203-1ab2-0bc7-4b3b-8dee-a94c.inf6.spectrum.com ([2603:9001:4203:1ab2:bc7:4b3b:8dee:a94c]:38862 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1txoBy-004DaZ-0w; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:26:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:27:04 -0400 From: Daniel Colascione User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <87iknumup7.fsf@dick> References: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> <87pli2achf.fsf@dick> <861puid1cy.fsf@gnu.org> <87iknumup7.fsf@dick> Message-ID: <9D740EF5-E811-4384-95C7-316A171CAD20@dancol.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) On March 27, 2025 10:09:24 AM EDT, dick=2Er=2Echiang@gmail=2Ecom wrote: >Your insistence on turning every simple layup into an interminable >discussion is why the only software management role you're qualified for >is an unpaid one=2E Is this the optimal communication style for getting bugs fixed the way you= 'd like? From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Daniel Colascione Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.17433168919448 (code B ref 77257); Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:42:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2025 06:41:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34323 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tymMM-0002SK-O0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:41:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53534) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tymMJ-0002Ry-AR for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:41:28 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tymMD-00071N-FU; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:41:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=wlfEZjQmttCBajMF6Fbi2pkHN/AwDvIXzbQzRTRKWP4=; b=cBGXU/9LNwm+ MkMZ5lwbLCJiT+EuIbUM2Za0B7p2YM5MhyItnOquHdNxyqH+BOPjb9WgHbBa9+ZKzT4cS3RzmxlMx sz2pZV3/jGLGniJYHsV3WJgyi7LnNIpRo6L36RxgTBWKU8wzcIS71hX5bWbQ4J5yG7rF+1OedwwVK CoWVrwIscPIHYlHKfe8YwRoUqhr1Bn1O664sqktRuuhkIkvEjOKOCNpnrAT8+rPk6JfnKL93I6Cv8 fH//1jjeY/vR1G2SM9nxuSTPW/BAR6sTF+MppOp8uRHE7ZkXRyt7EdQDeRIJHmUtLGed8UvHrFV2J OiFQjfKGchLEplf67fW9ww==; Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:41:18 +0300 Message-Id: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400) References: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Daniel Colascione > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 > > > (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing > the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be > preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some > of them. We need to preserve the current meaning of t as the value of inhibit-message, to avoid backward-incompatible changes. So I added a third value to mean suppress clearing of the echo-area as well. Does the patch below look right? diff --git a/doc/lispref/display.texi b/doc/lispref/display.texi index de06391..6eba3d7 100644 --- a/doc/lispref/display.texi +++ b/doc/lispref/display.texi @@ -405,7 +405,10 @@ Displaying Messages @defvar inhibit-message When this variable is non-@code{nil}, @code{message} and related functions will not display any messages in the Echo Area. Echo-area messages -are still logged in the @file{*Messages*} buffer, though. +are still logged in the @file{*Messages*} buffer, though. If the value +is the symbol @code{all}, it also suppresses the clearing of the +echo-area, such as when @code{message} is called with a @code{nil} or +empty argument. @end defvar @defmac with-temp-message message &rest body diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS index afa45c5..d3e7903 100644 --- a/etc/NEWS +++ b/etc/NEWS @@ -2045,6 +2045,12 @@ This function inserts the special EVENT into the input event queue. This event is sent when the device running Emacs enters or leaves the sleep state. ++++ +** 'inhibit-message' can now inhibit clearing of the echo-area. +Binding 'inhibit-message' to the special value 'all' will suppress both +the display of messages and the clearing of the echo-area, such as +caused by calling 'message' with a nil argument. + ** Function aliases obsolete since Emacs 23.2 have been removed: 'advertised-undo', 'advertised-widget-backward', and 'dired-advertised-find-file'. diff --git a/src/xdisp.c b/src/xdisp.c index f2b158f..7b894cd 100644 --- a/src/xdisp.c +++ b/src/xdisp.c @@ -12386,7 +12386,7 @@ message3 (Lisp_Object m) message_dolog (buffer, nbytes, true, multibyte); SAFE_FREE (); } - if (! inhibit_message) + if (NILP (Vinhibit_message)) message3_nolog (m); } @@ -13405,7 +13405,7 @@ clear_message (bool current_p, bool last_displayed_p) { Lisp_Object preserve = Qnil; - if (current_p) + if (current_p && !EQ (Vinhibit_message, Qall)) { if (FUNCTIONP (Vclear_message_function) /* FIXME: (bug#63253) Same as for `set-message-function` above. */ @@ -37582,15 +37582,17 @@ syms_of_xdisp (void) settings of `scroll-conservatively'. */); scroll_minibuffer_conservatively = true; /* bug#44070 */ - DEFVAR_BOOL ("inhibit-message", inhibit_message, - doc: /* Non-nil means calls to `message' are not displayed. -They are still logged to the *Messages* buffer. + DEFVAR_LISP ("inhibit-message", Vinhibit_message, + doc: /* Non-nil means suppress display of `message' text. +The messages are still logged to the *Messages* buffer. +If the value is `all', also suppress clearing the echo-area when +the `message' function is called with an empty or nil argument. Do NOT set this globally to a non-nil value, as doing that will disable messages everywhere, including in I-search and other places where they are necessary. This variable is intended to be let-bound around code that needs to disable messages temporarily. */); - inhibit_message = false; + Vinhibit_message = Qnil; message_dolog_marker1 = Fmake_marker (); staticpro (&message_dolog_marker1); From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Daniel Colascione Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.174331716210408 (code B ref 77257); Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:47:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2025 06:46:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34353 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tymQj-0002hi-PQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:46:02 -0400 Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]:42358) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tymQh-0002hO-E5 for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:46:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To: Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=2TvWkEwaTp5TO59zFj1BrD0op24X4KEttuPPMIUfTPU=; b=DBBM/iWUFs2hotMzdsm0/UdPRq /7a3iw00p6Q7WMGYUEjXFBNXcOpxonWqy1b+uPmy3IgxSZlZiOlOkl1+dRGXFr/pNO3mGwl85EP2Y f49DdsSnG3yP0mSYDLs+rWHh/swNR/wz6PYgsDhjzZsmQTXNOO9hMby7mC1nOv6s5qlvxj+nthVYf c/BBUYOX5r28YWMhlgpqajg247iM4zWAQHLTtif+39lpF6a7zVpAApWey4UnUz2WC1wY5vLA1Pa51 iRXYM7Tt8K6RUU8i3t/p2j/z708NhRrLotwV90ECAbLwjesmMBoP5Wp+lt3MIgzKvYMGfjNmiWW87 tp1HJ5hw==; Received: from dancol by dancol.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tymQG-004V43-1d; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:32 -0400 From: Daniel Colascione In-Reply-To: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.8; emacs 31.0.50 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:57 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Daniel Colascione >> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 >> >> >> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing >> the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be >> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some >> of them. > > We need to preserve the current meaning of t as the value of > inhibit-message, to avoid backward-incompatible changes. So I added a > third value to mean suppress clearing of the echo-area as well. Does > the patch below look right? Normally I'm all for backwards compatibility --- but do you really think there are people relying on inhibit-message t clearing the echo area? On purpose? From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Daniel Colascione Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.174332090722241 (code B ref 77257); Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:49:01 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2025 07:48:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34491 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tynP9-0005me-Bg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 03:48:27 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50586) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tynP7-0005mN-QL for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 03:48:26 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tynP2-0006sz-9y; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 03:48:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=vHcHs2308poODK3JO7PV51BIDmqQcc1HX3fu+4LbpIw=; b=EVYyxsSmXi5f I11oSRD4DOav22lWA2sG49QOFfSgXlNHU2qYoUO3bfxbF3qRt5cddnY3lGb30dY0S9O2uUwsduxlL bgHS9t3DASA+Z+N1b4tbnrwRunMvjhekwu5R5aYASQIgBnTcc3+RP0aecfgO2by5mlp2QtT8J0e5c rcKmFB81Yxpt2noo0G2XaFRenV0ZmKM/IyCQ66H3oue2e1o74oIFTaSC656GZ0wguGVwCCjDkGT2B rtSo7eDoaWBK3dGvdlKgdV8MzJBXLGRa0rbMpCQAhXpJDpilGHPiAPOCDak6ggew4Md+z84asjnay ssVyChbvOq21nolMnhcRgQ==; Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:48:16 +0300 Message-Id: <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:57 -0400) References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Daniel Colascione > Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:57 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Daniel Colascione > >> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 > >> > >> > >> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing > >> the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be > >> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some > >> of them. > > > > We need to preserve the current meaning of t as the value of > > inhibit-message, to avoid backward-incompatible changes. So I added a > > third value to mean suppress clearing of the echo-area as well. Does > > the patch below look right? > > Normally I'm all for backwards compatibility --- but do you really think > there are people relying on inhibit-message t clearing the echo area? > On purpose? How can we possibly know? Clearing of the echo-area is not exactly the same as displaying a message; the result of not clearing is to leave the previous echo-area text on display intact, and how can we know whether this behavior will surprise or annoy? Maybe someone binds inhibit-message non-nil because they want to see an empty echo-area? On top of that, clearing of the echo-area is done in many more places than just when calling 'message' itself. Call me a coward... From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 08:48:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: dancol@dancol.org, Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier , Andrea Corallo Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.17433244601173 (code B ref 77257); Sun, 30 Mar 2025 08:48:01 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2025 08:47:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34613 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tyoKS-0000Iq-9x for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 04:47:40 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47280) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tyoKP-0000Ia-5H for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 04:47:37 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tyoKI-0006K9-CG; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 04:47:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=XwS2ZnGKv5lV62HaHgPTdJeedM/yxNcKO91TSUIZH9s=; b=WzMaD5vtQzAf bEAE8Zh1cpX/4KlD6+V6as+9IdVlSyTwrx8TIy5wo3bQj1VZNMyolzBOoFdtCcaPr9sXGQxy8F0b9 d50KnQWqv0sdQW6SPKD2lwdd504UJQcA+gKpu31P3TPvBR48Hu8ZF50zFTL6jPvjHfvBmHiiPy+y6 l+80T6BgKjAquXPstOZqSuJdHAsGvFBRs8dps35M35q1g/CFOgOlHJSyVeWQ6PQa7KIUnhX2X0oK9 sBitJhq3mKhhEk0hy2jSbpiCgk4d9hzGLdvqxLpxM+s4m371TjK7fNqhlG2U8o3Nil0gZFHZ1WM95 BrDu9gqop9g/EC9tPC5xbw==; Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:47:14 +0300 Message-Id: <86ecye6h2l.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:48:16 +0300) References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:48:16 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > > > From: Daniel Colascione > > Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org > > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:57 -0400 > > > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > >> From: Daniel Colascione > > >> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 > > >> > > >> > > >> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing > > >> the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be > > >> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some > > >> of them. > > > > > > We need to preserve the current meaning of t as the value of > > > inhibit-message, to avoid backward-incompatible changes. So I added a > > > third value to mean suppress clearing of the echo-area as well. Does > > > the patch below look right? > > > > Normally I'm all for backwards compatibility --- but do you really think > > there are people relying on inhibit-message t clearing the echo area? > > On purpose? > > How can we possibly know? Clearing of the echo-area is not exactly > the same as displaying a message; the result of not clearing is to > leave the previous echo-area text on display intact, and how can we > know whether this behavior will surprise or annoy? Maybe someone > binds inhibit-message non-nil because they want to see an empty > echo-area? > > On top of that, clearing of the echo-area is done in many more places > than just when calling 'message' itself. > > Call me a coward... That said, if everyone else (CC'ed) think I'm too cautious, I will make t inhibit clearing the echo-area as well. From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Daniel Colascione Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 13:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrea Corallo , Stefan Kangas , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.17433421843022 (code B ref 77257); Sun, 30 Mar 2025 13:44:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2025 13:43:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35447 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tyswK-0000mg-1k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:43:04 -0400 Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]:39628) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tyswH-0000mG-Aq for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:43:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To: Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Dl/Fc4KC5pdz29D1Sr/X0g/kieSfEXYASRsYKm3e+pc=; b=Qfsk+cadj3HPwKVfVElYSn0TI5 amPGDz7G2PbF5AgyR7M+mFUNkbzhPCaeOwbmJ/0PZaEHmn4Bc3Qs/WsQBGikRlViuJqG5pNa8EOsu 9vjZCtWpGLdaWuVcwsEcP45/3/r4S6ZAGCAdILmdOwo/djeWFE+QfcJeeQKeAxeTaLRVWTxklAS4M xZGkhSRZxIhVLH0BBG0G2u+tFb59kq9owQE4XAzonDZd9ezBk1HAqzV369a6bcIiUCyDs1HAwDvnZ CcqrRFRjkyxpHatqdI3XDxNNASyZzU11LJYRl2mnn+3hGuUB5GmlniJa+JioxfGW6NU0fKb6YTRvm Ud0KoXkQ==; Received: from dancol by dancol.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tysvg-004Wm7-16; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:42:24 -0400 From: Daniel Colascione In-Reply-To: <86ecye6h2l.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> <86ecye6h2l.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.8; emacs 31.0.50 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:42:49 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:48:16 +0300 >> From: Eli Zaretskii >> >> > From: Daniel Colascione >> > Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org >> > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:57 -0400 >> > >> > Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > >> > >> From: Daniel Colascione >> > >> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing >> > >> the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be >> > >> preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some >> > >> of them. >> > > >> > > We need to preserve the current meaning of t as the value of >> > > inhibit-message, to avoid backward-incompatible changes. So I added a >> > > third value to mean suppress clearing of the echo-area as well. Does >> > > the patch below look right? >> > >> > Normally I'm all for backwards compatibility --- but do you really think >> > there are people relying on inhibit-message t clearing the echo area? >> > On purpose? >> >> How can we possibly know? Clearing of the echo-area is not exactly >> the same as displaying a message; the result of not clearing is to >> leave the previous echo-area text on display intact, and how can we >> know whether this behavior will surprise or annoy? Maybe someone >> binds inhibit-message non-nil because they want to see an empty >> echo-area? >> >> On top of that, clearing of the echo-area is done in many more places >> than just when calling 'message' itself. >> >> Call me a coward... > > That said, if everyone else (CC'ed) think I'm too cautious, I will > make t inhibit clearing the echo-area as well. Yep. Looking forward to seeing what others think. I hear what you're saying and would ordinarily agree, but in this specific case: 1. a plain reading of the inhibit-message documentation suggests that it inhibits all UI effects of message, and I'm not the only one to think so, and 2. the actual behavior just doesn't seem useful. Who *wants* the message area cleared but not filled? If I want to clear the message area, I can do it myself with (message nil). Dunno. Just seems unlikely to me that people are intentionally relying on current behavior. They might be doing so by accident, but that's a bug, and we might as well flush out bugs. BTW, shouldn't message' doc string mention inhibit-message? From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:40:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Daniel Colascione Cc: acorallo@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.174334559715208 (code B ref 77257); Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:40:02 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2025 14:39:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37689 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tytpL-0003x6-SH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:39:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54534) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tytp1-0003wC-AQ for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:39:35 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tytov-000161-Gj; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:39:29 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=CED5Bl8o/w0AqkFa++axkEGYqvpXnaS7xIdYHnZgkQo=; b=Heg9c0IdJns4 O5trJtq0rGmK3s8Wu5saZea3VzLfw8tj6cQVWJ3ndSvArv+TmbzN2efWt/Pf3GVSrori/MFQsyaVv i0L/W5wdWygGcjy4v21RJo2ohOHP84gHtdovbUfLg+8h+Afzq1l5ZlV6L2bjYf4ZAZJfJkJKBK59L NKlCRRRZft55Yo2O0ZZSXh3cQos/CqJhupdiYUW5C5ydelx60MJ3Lv96XGqMrcXTHWNgYyInTtjeX 1EuicitjgAw1vCj5d39Xg0JA1uUEJc7ATerv4kbFWMz6N6lxMjzvgDv89+I26AsQGJm59/4uli9JW uZIOXu7MZb/POGezkoKspA==; Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 17:39:25 +0300 Message-Id: <86v7rq4m76.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:42:49 -0400) References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> <86ecye6h2l.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Daniel Colascione > Cc: Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier > , Andrea Corallo , > 77257@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:42:49 -0400 > > BTW, shouldn't message' doc string mention inhibit-message? Cannot hurt. Done on the emacs-30 branch, thanks. From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 77257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrea Corallo , dancol@dancol.org, Stefan Kangas , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 77257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B77257.174334690419283 (code B ref 77257); Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:02:01 +0000 Received: (at 77257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2025 15:01:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37727 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tyuAS-00050x-1R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:44 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:49020) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tyuAP-00050g-BA for 77257@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:41 -0400 Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5F1ED440C7A; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:35 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1743346894; bh=Y4c3h7/EO5Tk8D+jZpzqG8XygHe8Z2H4zhz+kr2wrks=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=eg5gDYLHHJhGe02jvvI+5JtlJeJ2siCEnKaOqh0d0dBZWVJ8VtSecTP16kI3V6xgH y3lTN0v43kLjUg9RaCSqzfrv8xyZ0Uuo0YO9i4ovk8Nme14JPUEoomX/WcIrS26VhH uLEUZgb2dk6gqdXd9cMHIUgxbcqLdEpboWvWTzBmPn/0T6HbwGebI+alHPqo8O8Ezp ra7leh+PJgQSlSkYo93H5sQ9u7jRJN1jWGMbQDfARHY3xiUht7TYLyJ/V/Ff8JWLxN J2fIfvThcHiwhoM6xQrV3oh9yNqTxyYQTk9UDxAyQzl/3UTz/f3AXS9ROMLA9p6BcB +wfk9ivAaBY/w== Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 70AF8440AC8; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pastel (unknown [104.247.242.5]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AB3212065D; Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <86ecye6h2l.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> <86ecye6h2l.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:33 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.390 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > That said, if everyone else (CC'ed) think I'm too cautious, I will > make t inhibit clearing the echo-area as well. I'm in favor of the change. I think it's very odd that (message "Haha") ends up just clearing the echo area. To me, the purpose of `inhibit-message` is not to hide the messages that would be displayed but to prevent those messages from interfering with other messages. Stefan From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:55:34 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Daniel Colascione Subject: bug#77257: closed (Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too) Message-ID: References: <86h62slczh.fsf@gnu.org> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 77257 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs Reply-To: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 07:48:06 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1744530486-29041-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1744530486-29041-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 77257@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 77257: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D77257 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1744530486-29041-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 77257-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2025 07:47:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37927 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1u3s3t-0007SD-Ke for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2025 03:47:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39646) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1u3s3q-0007QW-0v for 77257-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2025 03:47:27 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1u3s3k-0005jb-6l; Sun, 13 Apr 2025 03:47:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=UMoUNSkCnorFRJdbsrqqyPEOah40Noefd47U94ZiVbU=; b=Zia9e+s0yTpV hQDhFUcnjUqaEKgS2+t2owv+Cr6cqleuhHfbzaTBdjjRLAG+9gIFCQNhqushBlMdCuwHm/gW1dFPN tAUR/QytdzVSG03H+QQOZFY0OY5+Vc+zKMEj2/Rm+yhaRUyUWc0OSZbuWYmrMDclNwaKkIDSJLsvx jCuCOhBlo2inOB0nZ8PZXnkKAg+lwioCznFt1+BpmpKFzc9mojZvY8a0djhunO0tSoz8NR6WtwX75 RLhixO9vRjAtC+NJEGwegBsqiC3jZ1mSCnKb6A55OsOYoXACbuVxxt7YcLMzlShYjr4iKRqHhb1zJ Rcp2yWhy83YFSewm+EL/iA==; Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 10:47:14 +0300 Message-Id: <86h62slczh.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:33 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> <86ecye6h2l.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257-done Cc: acorallo@gnu.org, dancol@dancol.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, 77257-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: dancol@dancol.org, Stefan Kangas , Andrea > Corallo , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:01:33 -0400 > > > That said, if everyone else (CC'ed) think I'm too cautious, I will > > make t inhibit clearing the echo-area as well. > > I'm in favor of the change. I think it's very odd that (message "Haha") > ends up just clearing the echo area. To me, the purpose of > `inhibit-message` is not to hide the messages that would be displayed > but to prevent those messages from interfering with other messages. So we have two in favor and none against. So I've now installed a change that will disable clearing of echo-area messages when inhibit-message is non-nil, and I'm closing this bug. ------------=_1744530486-29041-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Mar 2025 18:59:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40021 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9UO-0004DH-T4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:59:05 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:51476) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9UC-0004CO-O9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9U5-0000gs-0x for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:45 -0400 Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9Ty-0003fp-GE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=cAzQbSSwVoluvKvsPgqd0ER8Ts/3+mJ/zBqHwGLI+/A=; b=raHoch14dBBTXF9vsABcskhfNj KvKx9TLKUmYb+Sc+8pOZ08g2o2E5KPT2ZfdxqJGL3zyYOBSChKvF0czhC2pSMvyqpMQlNYTI9em0l 4LpP2thbtHS/4yYaGPGTIXdM4Xa0XRWOD5g4qi8trFs81HKZ25HkBmvrP/liBkCOKCVLsr0KCeSE3 ix/q/HIs+Lu9vOo5QeHamumrOU+PoKjy/S+zudohEwCeHcFtyrInHtpCPEo2apXv6TgQf+IL7hlWW egbbe3o2J7hD/QHbFAjx8JcQ9X63paRmyvaJW0gJaBC1C6WHWpxPtzWIiG0NmK6l9zWHq0kZadgBg epd8S9BA==; Received: from dancol by dancol.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tx9TZ-0041f4-0d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:13 -0400 From: Daniel Colascione To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.8; emacs 31.0.50 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1; envelope-from=dancol@dancol.org; helo=dancol.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) (let ((inhibit-message t)) (message "blah")) has the effect of clearing the echo area. I'd expect the semantic of inhibit-message to be preventing all visible side effects of message --- not just some of them. ------------=_1744530486-29041-1--