[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#47150: [External] : Re: bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in
From: |
jakanakaevangeli |
Subject: |
bug#47150: [External] : Re: bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:18:45 +0100 |
>>> Yeah, I see that the doc string for `minibuffer-inactive-mode'
>>> suggests that it's not used when the minibuffer is active.
>>> And that's effectively the case, though the mode name might
>>> not reflect it. There's _nothing to that mode_, apart from
>>> its keymap, and its keymap is not used when the minibuffer
>>> is active. So the mode is there in name only.
>>
>> I haven't checked whether its mode hook gets run, but I think it would
>> (if anybody put any functions on it).
> OK. But does the mode ever get turned off,
> once it's turned on (at minibuffer creation
> presumably)?
>
> I didn't think so. My impression has been that
> the mode remains `minibuffer-inactive-mode'.
>> [...]
>> That's about the only thing I worry about (along with
>> the possibility of using a mode hook - but we have that
>> danger with minibuffer-inactive-mode-hook anyway, and
>> it doesn't appear to have caused trouble, as yet.)
>
> I really don't see the mode hook (on any such mode)
> being a problem in practice.
>
> Currently, the minibuffer is (I think) _always_ in
> `minibuffer-inactive-mode'. Its mode hook only ever
> kicks in when a minibuffer buffer is created.
True, the mode doesn't normally switch to a different mode in 27.1, but
on the other hand, the function `minibuffer-inactive-mode' does indeed
get called on every minibuffer entry and exit (except for the first one,
I think) and its hook gets run every time.
The only thing Alan changed recently (for 28.1) was to instead call
`fundamental-mode' on minibuffer entry and now wants to change this to
call `minibuffer-mode'. As I see it, this is as small of a change as it
can get.
>>> What if the name of that mode was just `minibuffer'
>>> or `foobar'? Would you think/feel the same way about
>>> needing to add another mode? Seriously - please think
>>> about this.
>>
>> Well the behaviour of a minibuffer is so utterly different when it is
>> active, from when it is inactive (e.g., in a minibuffer-only frame) that
>> having them share a major mode doesn't seem right. But I take the point.
>
> It's a mode for the minibuffer; that's all.
>
> Yes, the behavior's different when it's inactive vs
> active - it's the key bindings. But the behavior's
> different when you use `completing-read' from when
> you use `read-string' or whatever - again, it's the
> key bindings (keymaps).
>
> Should we have a different major mode for each kind
> of active behavior - completing-read, read-file-name,
> read-buffer, read-number, read-expression,...
>
> All of those behaviors are different - different
> key binding. By your reasoning we should have
> different major modes for them, no?
I believe Stefan actually proposed something like that in a previous
message from this thread when he said read-from-minibuffer could accept
a major-mode/functionp argument. This would allow for straight-forward
documentation of each different minibuffer usage in `C-h m', including
mentioning the ability to use general editing commands.
Besides, wouldn't it be cool to have syntax highlighting in `M-:'?
I believe function eshell-command already does something like this, it
puts the minibuffer into eshell-mode.
Not to say that this comes without its own problems. For example, if a
user binds current-local-map's RET key from a major mode's hook, he will
not be able able to use RET to exit from a minibuffer in such a major
mode. `eshell-command' works around this with a minor mode that binds C-g
and RET to appropriate minibuffer commands but this solution isn't ideal
in my opinion because the user's modifications to minibuffer-local-map
aren't taken into account.
Perhaps a better way to make a major mode for use in minibuffers is to
derive it from an ordinary major mode and use an :after-hook to install
a local keymap that is composed of minibuffer-local[-completion|-ns]-map
and the current local map.
> [...]
>
> Do we even know whether adding that major mode to their
> lists would solve their problem?
>
>> I'm not familiar with any of the three packages cited
>> by the OP,
>
> Nor am I.
>
>> but in previous discussions, we'd already been through
>> talking about using `minibufferp'.
>
> Dunno what that was about. See previous: the minibuffer
> has a major mode, `minibuffer-inactive-mode', doesn't it?
> Why is that harder to handle than some other major mode?
See above. Alan recently changed active minibuffers' major mode from
`minibuffer-inactive-mode' to `fundamental-mode'.
- bug#47150: 28.0.50; Incorrect major-mode in minibuffer, (continued)
- 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, 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, 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 <=