RE: wrapper fn for message and minibuffer-message?

[Drew Adams]

        I'd even argue that this function should be called
        "minibuffer-message",
        since currently minibuffer-message is only used when
        (minibufferp) is non-nil.

    I agree that is a natural generalization.  But I agree that this name
    is not very clear for the current behavior, and even less clear for
    the suggested behavior.

I guess you didn't like the name "display-message" either (or co-opting the
name "message" for the wrapper function).

I think the name "minibuffer-message" is clear for its _current_ behavior -
what's unclear about it?

    I can't think of a better name for this function, but I do have
    an idea for a cleaner interface for the feature.  Have a variable
    minibuffer-message-at-end which, if t, causes `message' to
    display messages this way.

Not sure I understand. The important differences between `message' and
`minibuffer-message' today are these:

 - `message' exits the minibuffer (and recursive edit);
   `minibuffer-message' does not

 - `message' logs the message to *Messages*;
   `minibuffer-message' does not

 - `minibuffer-message' wraps the message in "  [...]";
   `message' does not

How would your suggestion relate to the first two differences?

In particular, a programmer must be able to control whether or not the
function exits the minibuffer. Today, that is done by using one or the
other: `message' or `minibuffer-message'.

How would the variable be set? Only explicitly, or would it also be set
implicitly, according to `minibufferp'? If the latter, how would a program
override that implicit behavior?

    It could use the same mechanism as now; or, maybe it would
    be cleaner to change the lower levels of redisplay to display
    the message at the end of the minibuffer when it is selected.

Sorry, I don't understand you, here. Could you elaborate a bit?