bug#45474: Icomplete exhibiting in recursive minibuffer when it shouldn’t

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: gregory@heytings.org,  dario.gjorgjevski@gmail.com,
>   45474@debbugs.gnu.org,  juri@linkov.net
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:18:48 -0400
> 
> > It means I disagree that "all schemes using dynamic scoping to pass
> > the information are broken and messy".
> 
> ;-)
> 
> That's the part I understood, indeed.  There are two aspects which make
> it rather unclear to me:
> - First, from where I stand, what I stated is not really a matter of
>   opinion but a mere result of the underlying way the problem works.
>   There's a admittedly some amount of "degree" that can depend on some
>   of the details, which is why I said "similarly".
> - Second I don't know what it implies in terms of your opinion w.r.t the
>   various potential problems with:
>   - the current way of passing the information (just plain let-binding).
>   - the way proposed by Gregory (let-binding of minibuffer-complete-*
>     followed by let-binding to other-named vars followed by setq-local
>     of minibuffer-complete-*, where the dance is performed in
>     `read-from-minibuffer`).
>   - the way I suggested (minibuffer-with-setup-hook + setq-local, done
>     in `completing-read-default`).
>   It seems to suggest that you may not find them all "similarly
>   broken&messy", but even that is not sure.

Your original opinion sounded like a general objection to passing
information via let-binding of dynamic variables.  I wanted to voice
my disagreement with such a general POV.  I wasn't saying anything
about this particular use of dynamic binding.