From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 29.0.60; keymap-local-set and keymap-global-set became less strict Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 20:43:09 +0200 Message-ID: <83mt5y1r5u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5876987d-2479-f512-5767-218c8c16a909@daniel-mendler.de> <875ycngyji.fsf@gnus.org> <87zg9zvzuc.fsf@gmail.com> <831qna3frm.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt5yogct.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1pi1wz4.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilgmodk4.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4678"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, mail@daniel-mendler.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 31 19:44:01 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvbs-00010e-UI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 19:44:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvb9-00068Q-Na; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:43:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvb7-000661-Ts for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:43:13 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvb6-00084v-H6; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:43:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=OHSj+375vVX2XAXaG9By9/KU9rz2TRDIPxmNBtJ5dnA=; b=rd5ztSp9pbESisM+V1Sq KhyL9fPdkM+Xink2psztPrL3RXsICWB7YZrLag9WtoNjghgWzRnzsAwj4u8gIuGZ0/FoyDd60Liwe z8SaYGvKc1/3ys1YDyJIZl7YHCDYOykiL8fIrp41VC/1D4GCZ0K5mWIy4KM4nUngiFXK8TLBo+xGX S7fuxw5CWQ7/vuNAJQDklUKJyYVTV9mmjccRzsy9nztnS9uZGHXKhLc563llvRBonWSqLjmAliKNU rd8uS1qgCXGU0AeP+jgHqhXEn/UyTrdgkAE0DnhEj9pZyKVuc4ukTCNF3Us7duoIVnnjYwoUZcp+n LlQuo8NYSCPrwQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvb5-0002TY-W3; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:43:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87ilgmodk4.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:48:27 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:302842 Archived-At: > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, mail@daniel-mendler.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:48:27 +0100 > > >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:37:35 +0200, Eli Zaretskii said: > > >> From: Robert Pluim > >> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, mail@daniel-mendler.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > >> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:48:02 +0100 > >> > >> >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:06:21 +0200, Eli Zaretskii said: > >> > Eli> Why does it have to be so complicated, though? If the problem is not > Eli> to call key-description in non-interactive invocations, can't we call > Eli> key-description inside the interactive form? Or use some other trick > Eli> to invoke key-description only in interactive calls? > >> > >> ? Weʼre only calling key-description inside `interactive' in the > >> patch. > > Eli> I meant _before_ the patch. The only problem with that code was that > Eli> it called key-description fro non-interactive invocations. Can't we > Eli> handle just that minor issue, and leave the rest intact? If not, why > Eli> not? > > Sure, if you tell me how to reliably determine > that. `called-interactively-p' comes with all sorts of dire warnings. What's wrong with the first method described in the node "Distinguish Interactive" in the ELisp reference?