[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in mini
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Mar 2021 19:42:21 +0000 |
> >> I'm in favor of introducing a `minibuffer-mode`.
> > Why?
>
> Because that's already what "fundamental-mode + minibuffer-local-map"
> is, tho without the benefit of all the associated conventions of a major
> mode (e.g. C-h m to name just one).
>
> >> Part of the question is also when and how that mode is activated (since
> >> activating such a mode has the effect of deleting the local variables).
> >> I think we should call `minibuffer-mode` every time we (re)activate
> >> a minibuffer.
> > Why?
>
> So a minibuffer isn't affected by what happened in its previous invocation.
Can you give a quick example? I don't think I've
ever noticed a minibuffer affected by what happened
in a previous invocation.
> >> The way I see it, `eval-expression` would want to use a new major mode
> >> that derives from `minibuffer-mode`.
> > Why change the major mode?
>
> Why not. That's already what `eval-expression` does, except it does it
> piecemeal instead of via the well known major-mode concept.
>
> > What's involved, besides keymaps?
>
> In the case of `eval-expression, potentially anything that applies to
> a normal buffer seems to be applicable, e.g. indentation,
> show-paren-mode, eldoc, font-lock, flymake, company-mode, you name it...
Hm. Be careful what you wish for.
> >> It would also provide a cleaner way to do what we currently do via the
> >> `minibuffer-with-setup-hook` hack.
> > Really? Everything that someone might do on that
> > hook you would have passed as a function arg?
>
> I don't think we could replace all uses of `minibuffer-with-setup-hook`
> with that, no, at least not without additional changes (since my
> suggestion only covers code which currently directly uses
> `read-from-minibuffer`, so we'd at least have to change
> `completing-read` so it too can take a major-mode as argument).
Ugh.
> > Why would you find that cleaner?
>
> If you don't know, it's because you haven't looked at the implementation
> of `minibuffer-with-setup-hook`, which is fundamentally inherently
> brittle (tho it's sufficiently tuned that it's normally never a problem
> in practice, of course).
I thought you were saying it would be cleaner for
_users_. My question was/is how it would be cleaner
for users.
> > Right. There was nothing missing before `minibuffer-inactive-mode'
> > was added, except possibly the corner case you mentioned for
> > a standalone minibuffer frame. (And I use such a frame, and I've
> > never felt the need to use it in an "inactive" active way.)
>
> Nobody forces you to use it. It should be harmless.
> Have you suffered from the addition of `minibuffer-inactive-mode`?
> I can't remember seeing many bug reports about it (although I was
> worried when I added it).
Right. That was my expectation too - harmless.
(Though your comment above, about "anything that
applies to a normal buffer makes me just a tiny
bit nervous now.)
And no, I've never suffered from `*-inactive-mode'.
I've never found a use for it either.
Can I ask what's wrong with what I suggested: One
mode, not two; just change the name and provide
a helpful doc-string that covers both active and
inactive?
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, (continued)
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Drew Adams, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/03/23
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Drew Adams, 2021/03/23
- bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Drew Adams, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer,
Drew Adams <=
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Drew Adams, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/03/22
- bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/22
bug#47150: [External] : bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, jakanakaevangeli, 2021/03/22
bug#47150: [External] : Re: bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, jakanakaevangeli, 2021/03/23