GNU bug report logs - #77257
inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too

Previous Next

Full log

Message #35 received at 77257 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol <at> dancol.org>
Cc: 77257 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#77257: inhibit-message should inhibit echo area clearing too
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 10:48:16 +0300

> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol <at> dancol.org>
> Cc: 77257 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:45:57 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol <at> dancol.org>
> >> 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...

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.