From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:30:46 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#77257 <77257@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#77257 <77257@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too Reply-To: bug#77257 <77257@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 22:30:46 +0000 retitle 77257 inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too reassign 77257 emacs submitter 77257 Daniel Colascione severity 77257 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 25 14:59:05 2025 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. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 26 13:25:20 2025 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 To: Daniel Colascione , Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too References: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@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: 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 26 15:21:23 2025 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 To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: Daniel Colascione , 77257@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 (---) >> (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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 26 15:40:23 2025 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: Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000089914106314401e1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Colascione , 77257@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: -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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 27 02:12:19 2025 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 To: Ship Mints In-Reply-To: (message from Ship Mints on Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:40:02 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: dancol@dancol.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 77257@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: 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 27 09:09:49 2025 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 To: dick.r.chiang@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 27 09:55:55 2025 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 To: Daniel Colascione In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:09:34 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too References: <86semzd7rh.fsf@gnu.org> <87pli2achf.fsf@dick> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 27 10:27:18 2025 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 To: dick.r.chiang@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 30 02:41:31 2025 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 To: Daniel Colascione In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:58:35 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too References: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@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: 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 30 02:46:02 2025 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 To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@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: -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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 30 03:48:27 2025 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 To: Daniel Colascione In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:57 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@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: 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 30 04:47:40 2025 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 To: dancol@dancol.org, Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier , Andrea Corallo In-Reply-To: <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:48:16 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too References: <86ldsn58c1.fsf@gnu.org> <86h63b558f.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: 77257@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 (---) > 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 30 09:43:04 2025 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 To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: Andrea Corallo , Stefan Kangas , 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 30 10:39:57 2025 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 To: Daniel Colascione In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Colascione on Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:42:49 -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 Cc: acorallo@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, 77257@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 30 11:01:44 2025 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 To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 77257 Cc: Andrea Corallo , dancol@dancol.org, Stefan Kangas , 77257@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 (---) > 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 13 03:47:30 2025 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. From unknown Fri Aug 15 15:30:46 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 11:24:11 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator