From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: position on changing defaults? Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:30:17 +0100 Message-ID: <47D9B909.7070105@gmail.com> References: <200803050637.m256bXL3008361@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <87hcfkdhqk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87pru8enjx.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <8763vy95a6.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87wsoc39i8.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <877igb7dsi.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87hcff5upc.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87fxuxsg3m.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87r6egp8oo.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <47D86DC6.4080805@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205451060 28537 80.91.229.12 (13 Mar 2008 23:31:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, storm@cua.dk, miles@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 14 00:31:27 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JZwtM-0000pZ-A7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:31:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZwsn-0006ZE-9e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:30:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZwsj-0006Z9-BV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:30:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZwsh-0006Yx-07 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:30:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZwsg-0006Yu-Qj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:30:38 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZwsZ-0007N0-ED; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:30:31 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:61347 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JZwsX-00051a-4Y; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:30:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080313-0, 2008-03-13), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-ACL-Warn: Too high rate of unknown addresses received from you X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JZwsX-00051a-4Y. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1JZwsX-00051a-4Y c0545217ca26d96d035ca48c9539563e X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:92448 Archived-At: Richard Stallman wrote: > I can not see what the advantage with an interactive spec over a > property on the function name is. Could you please tell? > > The interactive spec is where you specify other things about how to > call the function interactively. So it is a cleaner interface to put > this in the same place. Thanks. Then I think using a interactive spec has to be compared with the greater flexibility with using a property on the function. > And for the actual implementation of activating/deactivating the mark I > can not see the advantage of doing it directly in the command loop > instead of in special hooks before and after pre/post-command-hook. > > Using those hooks is unreliable and slow. Using a hook can't be too slow here since this is just one hook at the top level of the command loop, or? (I think this is Stefan's position.) If shift things are added to pre-command hook then there can be some trouble because other functions might to things before those we want to do. However if a new hook is introduced that runs before pre-command hook then it should be reliable. (If this hook is not used for things that can break the shift things.) The advantage of such a hook is that it can be used for other similar things and that the "shift things" can be written in elisp.