Re: wrapper fn for message and minibuffer-message?

[Richard M. Stallman]

    OK. If I understand you correctly, you would keep functions `message' and
    `minibuffer-message' as they are now.  You would not eliminate either
    function. The former's default behavior would use nil for
    `minibuffer-message-at-end'; the latter would use non-nil.

No.  The idea is that `message' would obey whatever the value
of `minibuffer-message-at-end' happens to be.

`minibuffer-message' could work by binding `minibuffer-message-at-end'
and calling `message'.

    You are not interested in any wrapper function that uses the minibuffer
    state (active or inactive) to determine the `minibuffer-message-at-end'
    behavior.

    Is that correct?

There is no need for one.  `minibuffer-message-at-end' would have no
effect when the minibuffer is not active.