🚀 go-pugleaf

> 
> Jamie mentioned to me that the separate minibuffer feature might go
> away when the greate epoch/lucid merge occurs.  I for one, and at
> least some of my users would greatly prefer to keep a separate
> minibuffer as an option.  It is so handy to have one large minibuffer,
> particularly when you have smallish windows (say 40 columns or so),
> and want to do a find-file-other-screen.
> 
Please don't remove the separate minibuffer feature. I find it quite handy.
If you have very long pathnames, and wan't to see the whole path, you just
resize the minibuffer instead of the whole window.

I've also got used to having the minibuffer at the top of my screen. My eyes
automatically go there whenever I do something minibufferish. Switching
to the old emacs style has become a real pain (when epoch isn't available,
i.e no X).  I find myself looking all over for the minibuffer until I
realize where it is :-).

	Jan D.

In article <9302250023.AA11945@curley.osf.org> meissner@osf.ORG writes:
>
>  Jamie mentioned to me that the separate minibuffer feature might go
>  away when the greate epoch/lucid merge occurs.  I for one, and at
>  least some of my users would greatly prefer to keep a separate
>  minibuffer as an option.  It is so handy to have one large minibuffer,
>  particularly when you have smallish windows (say 40 columns or so),
>  and want to do a find-file-other-screen.

	I think this is a very handy feature; I always use a separate
	minibuffer with Epoch, and the lack of a separate minibuffer
	in Lucid Emacs makes me reluctant to switch. I would HATE
	to see this dropped.

							Darrell Schiebel

In article <9302250727.AA05013@epls01.sa.erisoft.se> Jan.Djarv@sa.erisoft.SE (Jan Djarv) writes:
   > Jamie mentioned to me that the separate minibuffer feature might go
   > away when the greate epoch/lucid merge occurs.  I for one, and at
   > least some of my users would greatly prefer to keep a separate
   > minibuffer as an option.  It is so handy to have one large minibuffer,
   > particularly when you have smallish windows (say 40 columns or so),
   > and want to do a find-file-other-screen.
   Please don't remove the separate minibuffer feature. I find it quite handy.
   If you have very long pathnames, and wan't to see the whole path, you just
   resize the minibuffer instead of the whole window.

   I've also got used to having the minibuffer at the top of my screen. My eyes
   automatically go there whenever I do something minibufferish. Switching
   to the old emacs style has become a real pain (when epoch isn't available,
   i.e no X).  I find myself looking all over for the minibuffer until I
   realize where it is :-).


Please, oh please keep the minibuffer!  For me it is a major win over
both Lucid Emacs and vanilla Emacs (hee).  It seems I always have more
than one screen up (thanks to gnuclient), and it is so much easier to
deal with a centrally located *single* minibuffer (now if we could
only put a scrollbar on it... :-) ).

Also, since it seems the flame wars between Lucid Emacs and vanilla
Emacs 19 are getting ready to start again, let me get my two cents
into the fray now.  There are two major things keeping me from using
Lucid Emacs.  1) Lack of minibuffer support. 2) The innability to
share elisp files as well as Epoch and vanilla Emacs do.  I can only
hope that the latter will change when Emacs 19 comes out.  Now what
about the former?

As for the apparent bad blood between Lucid and RMS, I don't think it
is making either side look any better than the other.  I think it's
bad because Emacs as a whole is what's going to end up getting hurt.
From a strictly outsider/user point of view it appears that Lucid was
hurrying things to get their product out, thus the apparent rushing of
the emacs 19 development, and the lumping in of features that RMS was
unsure of/didn't know about.  By the same token, I don't think RMS
wanted any one entity other than himself and the FSF to have too much
design control over Emacs.  Please (and I am going to sound like a
politician or something by saying this), for the good of Emacs as a
whole try to make some sort of compromise, huh?

As for Epoch, I see it as a possible way to unify the two peacefully.
Any thoughts?


Colin


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Smiley, Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, Texas 77269-2000
e-mail: smiley@compaq.com                           Phone: (713) 378-8426
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed here do not reflect the opinions of
Compaq Computer Corp.  They make computers.  I make noise.

In article <9302250727.AA05013@epls01.sa.erisoft.se> Jan.Djarv@sa.erisoft.SE (Jan Djarv) writes:
>> Jamie mentioned to me that the separate minibuffer feature might go away
>> when the greate epoch/lucid merge occurs.  I for one, and at least some of
>> my users would greatly prefer to keep a separate minibuffer as an option.

I agree.  I also can't believe that such a *feature* would actually be removed!
I want a minibuffer in one place.  Why duplicate it on each screen?

Si.
-- 
Simon Marshall, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
  "Football isn't about life and death.  It's more important than that." Bill
Email: S.Marshall@cs.hull.ac.uk   Phone: +44 482 465951  Fax: 466666   Shankley