Re: Enhancements to "minor-mode-map-alist" functionality.

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    > Why do we want that?  What job are you trying to do?

    I've described that several times by now

Not specifically enough that I can try to determine
whether there is another way to do the job.

     -- I'm trying to find the
    right approach to address the issues with complex modes which uses a
    lot of keymaps (like cua and viper) and base the selection between
    those keymaps on combining various state information

Selecting between keymaps is one possible avenue for doing a certain
job.  Before we assume it should be done this way, what are the other
avenues?  What is the job?

    I have N keymaps which all make bindings starting with C-x -- and I want
    all of those bindings to "work".

What job are these bindings supposed to *do*?  Given time I could
figure that out from the code you sent, but I don't have that time.

    If it wasn't for the problem evalling code in the current_minor_maps
    function [I believe there are ways to solve that], would that solution
    be acceptable?

Not necessarily.  It would still be a big extension in an area where
the code is already too complex.  Multiple inheritance is inherently a
mess.  Once it was added, it would probably require subsequent work to
fix bugs or to add more features so people can "fully use" it.

    > Multiple inheritance is a mess.  We should avoid it if we can.

    But the `parent keymap' inheritance is already pretty messy.

That is why we should not make it any hairier.

Please don't use arguments of the form "We already have this kind of
problem, therefore it it doesn't matter if we add to it."  That is the
wrong approach for any serious problem, and I can promise you I will
say no.