On 28/10/2023 19:56, Juri Linkov wrote:
>>>>>> +         ;; Variation: could be a separate command, or an option.
>>>>>> +         ;; (command (let ((overriding-local-map project-prefix-map))
>>>>>> +         ;;            (key-binding (read-key-sequence
>>>>>> +         ;;                          (format "[execute in %s]:" (project-root pr)))
>>>>>> +         ;;                         t)))
>>>>> Thanks, it works nicely.
>>>>> Any reason not to use this by default?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing critical, but it might not fit the expectations without additional
>>>> instructions in the prompt, or it can be unnecessary if the user had
>>>> reached this command through 'C-x p o'.
>>> Indeed, this is needed only for 'C-x p p' that supports the global map.
>>>
>>>> In the latter case there is also a small chance that the user had set up
>>>> some advanced sub-maps inside project-prefix-map which would shadow some
>>>> global bindings. So maybe a separate command is best. Please see how you
>>>> like the attached new version together with
>>>>
>>>>     (setq project-switch-commands #'project-prefix-or-any-command)
>>> A separate command that is not used anywhere looks strange.
>>> Why not a simple option like 'project-switch-use-entire-map'?
>>
>> You would still need to change project-switch-commands, right? Or what
>> would the option be called?
> 
> I expected 'project-switch-use-global-map' to be used
> by 'project--switch-project-command' without the need
> to customize 'project-switch-commands'.

How about this, then?

project-switch-use-global-map is obsoleted, all variations are 
accessible through customizing project-switch-commands. Should have 
better discoverability for project-prefix-or-any-command than simply 
having it included.

>>>> I'm not sure about project-prefix-or-any-command's prompt, though (phrasing
>>>> feels awkward). Improvements welcome.
>>> I'm not a fan of the long prompt especially that wraps to the second
>>> line.
>>
>> It didn't wrap for me.
> 
> Because the length depends on the deepness of the project root.
> 
>> But if it's too long, how would you like it changed?
>> Remove everything? Just keep [executing in ...]?
> 
> I'd prefer keeping only [executing in ...] because it's useful
> to confirm in which directory the command will be executed.
> But all available keys are usually useless except in such modes
> as help-quick for novices.

I don't like having a prompt that requires prior knowledge to use, but 
fair enough, let's just use [executing in ...] for now. Perhaps someone 
will suggest an alternative later.

The new revision is attached, have a look.