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: Enhancements to "minor-mode-map-alist" functionality. Date: 21 Apr 2002 19:46:22 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xy9fhj66p.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <5xbscpg7zl.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200204112243.g3BMhmI01190@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xd6x5i7ps.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <5x4rih12b2.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200204121846.g3CIkZY16909@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xofgoobzr.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200204122021.g3CKLh217680@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xu1qd29od.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200204162018.g3GKI3S24358@aztec.santafe.edu> <5x662rxog2.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200204181846.g3IIk2K00596@aztec.santafe.edu> <5xk7r4mwqs.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200204191343.g3JDh1V09176@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xn0vz8zv3.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200204191446.g3JEk2w09743@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019407706 2144 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2002 16:48:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:48:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16zKVm-0000YT-00 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:48:26 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16zKW4-0002lO-00 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:48:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16zKVZ-0001Gg-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:48:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16zKT0-0001AP-00 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:45:34 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B1087C048; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:45:33 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: "Stefan Monnier" In-Reply-To: <200204191446.g3JEk2w09743@rum.cs.yale.edu> Original-Lines: 40 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2946 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2946 "Stefan Monnier" writes: > > "Stefan Monnier" writes: > > > I haven't heard any comment about my proposal to use `menu-item' > > > bindings with a :enable setting in order to get conditional bindings > > > (this doesn't currently work, but it should be pretty easy to make > > > it work). > > > Would it help you solve your problems ? > > > > Considering that cua has approx 100 bindings in 7 keymaps, > > it seems like absolute overkill IMO to condition each of those > > 100 bindings individually instead of just the 7 keymaps which > > contain those bindings... > > Is that 7*100 bindings or 7*14 bindings ? It is 8 + 7 + 2 + 10 + 17 + 60 + 16 bindings... > How much overlap ? None. > How many different conditions would there be ? There are 7 different conditions. > For the sake of describe-key, I think it's better to have fewer bindings > (with the dispatch done more often in the bound function rather > than in the :enable conditionals) so that the docstring can describe what > happens when. I don't think you will see any difference whether this is done via conditions in the minor-mode-map-alist (or emulation-mode-map-alist), or by conditioning each command individually. Also, I don't see why it is better to eval the various conditions 100 times rather than just 7 times? -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk