bug#5923: bug#3938: bug#5923: 23.1.95; minibuffer-message discards input events

[Drew Adams]

> > > Is this bug fixed?  The special casing of this in `sit-for' has been
> > > removed meanwhile, but also the overriding-map-is-bound and
> > > universal-argument-other-key have been removed, so it's hard to run the
> > > code examples in current (version 25) Emacs.
> >
> > I don't know if it is fixed, and I don't have the time to dig into
> > this again.  (What you quoted was by no means the last part of this
> > bug thread, BTW.)  I would _not_ assume that this bug has been fixed.
> > I think someone would need to dig into this, to debug it.
> 
> One could hope for a more cooperative response, I think. 

Ditto.  Time passes...

> It took me all of 5 minutes, without knowing anything about icicles and very
> little about the new implementation of universal-argument, to convert
> your test file to the current sources (see the attached).  With it, I
> convinced myself that the bug is indeed fixed: typing the first 's'
> interrupts the wait immediately, and displays "ssss" in the echo area.

I had already done similarly, FWIW.  To me it does not constitute a proof
that the bug is fixed.  If it convinces you, fine; close the bug, as I said.

> Please verify that my changes to the test file are valid and the bug
> is indeed fixed.

Sorry, I don't have the time to do that.  And as I said, IMO this
alone doesn't convince me that the bug is fixed.  It might be fixed;
I don't know.  I hope it is.

If you can convince yourself in 5 minutes that it is fixed, great.

The bug (#3938) was filed almost exactly 7 years ago, with a very short
recipe to reproduce, starting from `emacs -Q'.  Likewise, for the merged
bug (#5923) - 6 years ago, with other emacs -Q recipes
(http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=5923#23, 
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=5923#26).

Responses from Stefan at the time:

 But to tell you the truth the handling of this-command-keys and
 universal-argument prefix is much too delicate for me to understand it...

 Thank you for your efforts digging into this bug.  I must say I know
 even less than you do about those parts of the code.  It's clearly too
 intricate for its own good, but I don't know how to streamline it.

That was it.  It died on the vine in 2010.  If it somehow got fixed
accidentally in the interim, great.

"One could _hope_ for a more cooperative response, I think."
But all's well that ends well.  (Assuming it is ended, and well.)