Any update/decision on this? The discussions have been inactive for more than 2 weeks.
> > Can I ask what's wrong with what I suggested: One mode, not two; just
> > change the name and provide a helpful doc-string that covers both
> > active and inactive?
>
> What's the benefit? Have you tried to implement it?
Is there really something to "implement"?
Rename `minibuffer-inactive-mode' to something
without "inactive".
Give it a doc string that says when inactive...
and when active.... We already have the former
part. The latter can just point out the keymaps
(which become links to their doc).
Benefit: Like what we have now - or after Alan's
change to fundamental-mode - but with better doc
and without a misleading mode name.
The behavior is already there, no? When inactive
we get the inactive key bindings. Otherwise, we
get the usual minibuffer keymaps.
IIUC, that's the case whether or not the "active"
state nominally uses `fundamental-mode', since the
minibuffer keymaps are still used. The difference
is (1) doc and (2) only one mode.
Feel free to let me know what I'm missing.