bug#43103: 28.0.50; Default ElDoc composition strategy in Elisp mode (eldoc-documentation-strategy)

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 01.09.2020 14:11, João Távora wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:
>
> > > other people would like these things, hence my proposal.  I don't mind
> > > the echo area jumping in height one or two lines once in a while,
> >
> > I mind. Unfortunately.
> >
> > > but if
> > > others do, there are tools to control it, which we can leverage to good
> > > effect.  That's it.
> >
> > What tools?
>
> eldoc-echo-area-use-multiline-p, as I mentiond at least 3 times in this
> thread.

In my very first message, I asked what's the point of changing the 
strategy if we set this variable to nil.

Please pay attention.

> > > You said you wished for a command to "show documentation" and I
> > > pointed
> > > you to M-x eldoc, a new command which seems to do what you want, and
> > > that you might not be aware of since it wasn't discussed.
>
> > And I told you its semantics are broken.
>
> I think you are still confusing M-x eldoc and M-x eldoc-doc-buffer,
> which are two different commands.

Ah, that very well may be.

But if so, your advice wasn't great. M-x eldoc (if it only uses the echo 
area) is for showing small hints, not for showing documentation.

> For the record, both commands and
> surrounding functionality can and probably will be improved.

Indeed.

> > Showing the text intended to be displayed in the echo area (one line,
> > usually; maybe a few) in a full-size window is ridiculous.
>
> This is not true in the generality of ElDoc usage, of course: LSP users
> are confronted with very verbose at-point documentation.

And very verbose eldoc messages, then?

> And a window
> and buffer in Emacs are not the same thing, something I assumed you
> knew.

Your point being?

The said buffer is subsequently displayed in a normal window. Not in a 
"mini" window akin to minibuffer.

> > > If you don't
> > > wish to pursue this suggestion, fine.  I am in no obligation to waste my
> > > time replying to every new off-topic point you bring up, I do so only
> > > where I think I can add value.  Bickering with you is not one of those
> > > things.
> >
> > If you try actually reading what I wrote, you might find some
> > actionable suggestions there.
>
> I told you at least once that it's rude to accuse other people of not
> reading your emails.  It's a lie and a disrespect for the precious time
> they invest in reading them and replying to them as they see fit.

And it's not rude to snip off a third of the message your are replying 
to without any good reason?

> Not
> to mention wholly unproductive.  Because I don't have time for this, I'm
> putting you in my ignore list, joined by very few, if anyone.  So now
> you'll _know_ that I won't be reading what you write, and the reason why
> I won't.

It must be fun to see (or not see) one's commits surprisingly reverted 
because of a message you chose not to read.