RE: GNU Emacs raison d'etre

[Drew Adams]

> > FWIW, I use a separate minibuffer frame, which extends
> > across the bottom of the screen (by default - size &
> > position configurable).
> 
> I'm not convinced frames would be the best technical solution,
> since they have to be handled by window managers.  And that
> invites headaches, not least when you add things like tiling
> window managers into the mix.

So Emacs shouldn't offer such a choice (OOTB) for
the many window managers (most?) that are capable
of putting a minibuffer frame at the bottom of
your screen?

Epoch (just another Emacs) did this, out of the
box, in the early 90s.  30 years ago.  And with
no hoops to jump through (such as I jump through
to get a semblance of that behavior with GNU Emacs).

> > Top positioning has either the same problem as near
> > point (your annoyance: obscuring info) or the same
> > problem as bottom-positioning.
> 
> Agreed.  Top positioning might be better for other
> reasons though.

What reasons?  The argument that a minibuffer at
the bottom of each frame is too far away from
point applies equally to top of frame, no?
Likewise, bottom of screen and top of screen.

In any case, most window mgrs that can put a
minibuffer frame at the bottom of the screen
can, I'm guessing, put it at the top instead.