From xemacs-m  Sun Mar 23 17:40:51 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA09405
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:40:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcieg24048; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:40:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:40:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQcieg24048.199703232340@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: patches to compile.el
In-Reply-To: <rvohcaxkt7.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
References: <199703230329.WAA05074@pochacco.alphatech.com>
	<m267yimdxs.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<rvohcaxkt7.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid (beta103)
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

David Moore writes:
 > Well, uncomenting this won't break anything (well once you fix the old
 > style DEFUN).  The question therefore is what is the motivation for
 > having it or not.  I can see how minibuf_prompt_width is certainly a
 > questionable thing to try to provide, but not minibuffer-prompt.
 > [...examples deleted...]

Seems dubious.  Which prompt in which minibuffer should it return?
If we bring it back, then we have to answer this question.  I
don't want to try to answer it.

