From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: position on changing defaults? Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:06 +0100 Message-ID: <85od9j9if1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> 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=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205394332 8985 80.91.229.12 (13 Mar 2008 07:45:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, "Kim F. Storm" , miles@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 13 08:45:59 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 1JZi8U-0001Z2-83 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZi7v-0001JO-8V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:45:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZi7r-0001Ir-GC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:45:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZi7q-0001Gd-1u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:45:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZi7p-0001GO-Rd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:45:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZi7h-0003vd-Sj; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:45:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-06.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.46]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZi7g-0005xM-UD; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:45:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.29]) by mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911DE31E9FC; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:07 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.47]) by mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF54279437; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:07 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-006-131.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.6.131]) by mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAD328ABA2; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:07 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 087CA1C4F905; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:06 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:52:01 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6220/Wed Mar 12 23:33:03 2008 on mail-in-07.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:92377 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> AFAICT, the approach I proposed where most/all the movement commands get >>> changed to call a special function in the interactive spec wouldn't >>> suffer from any such problems. I think it's the best approach so far. > >> I can not see what the advantage with an interactive spec over a property on >> the function name is. Could you please tell? > > Very simple: no magic, no pre/post-command-hook. I think this functionality is eligible for an actual interactive spec letter. That makes people more comfortable with using it where appropriate. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum