From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.. Date: 02 Sep 2002 12:22:21 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xsn0sr8rm.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <87lm6xiruh.fsf@computer.localdomain> <5xu1liwmu6.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208261526.g7QFQX624783@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xu1lgu1e4.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208271621.g7RGLNm30516@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xhehfe3aj.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <87d6rzpybd.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1030958545 15232 127.0.0.1 (2 Sep 2002 09:22:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 09:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, deego@glue.umd.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17lnPb-0003xZ-00 for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:22:23 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17lnxl-0001HE-00 for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:57:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17lnR7-0008Eb-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 05:23:57 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17lnPI-000870-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 05:22:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17lnPF-00086Z-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 05:22:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17lnPF-00086L-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 05:22:01 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CD4C7C016; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 09:22:00 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 36 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7323 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7323 Miles Bader writes: > Richard Stallman writes: > > Note that using my definition, both bindings (`C-x e' and `C-x )') > > retain their current simple one-binding-one-operation meanings. > > > > There is a way to look at this which makes it coherent. It could > > mean, "Execute the keyboard macro, closing it first if necessary." > > Right, that's what I thought I said (or tried to say, anyway). > > > That's not what it does now, though, is it? > > No, Kim changed it to have the `a-OR-b' definition. I'd call it a-THEN-b ... > > I think it would be better to revert that change, and simply make the > primitive `call-last-kbd-macro' silently end any macro currently being > defined before executing the macro. Personally, I have no preferences here. What do others think? Should C-x ( ... C-x e terminate and execute the macro immediately? If so, should it still be possible to repeat the call by just hitting `e' or `SPC'? -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk