From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Current mode command discovery Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:49:46 +0100 Message-ID: <874kieidcl.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87v9aubm96.fsf@gnus.org> <878s7qifn2.fsf@telefonica.net> 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="3309"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:7nXK1N16x5uX1L/dCSOj2ox2wzM= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 14 21:51:12 2021 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 1lBOMJ-0000kj-5C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:51:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35482 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBOMI-0005XL-6m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:51:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37588) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBOL8-0004aY-8y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:49:59 -0500 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:56008) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBOL6-0006KD-Ln for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:49:58 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lBOL4-0009wx-18 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:49:54 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:264781 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov writes: > On 14.02.2021 22:00, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> That only works with major modes, which IMO is enough to disqualify it, > > Extending the implementation to minor modes should be straightforward. > >> but on addition it uses crude heuristics for detecting the commands >> related to the major mode. > > It's fairly crude, but do you imagine any frequent cases where it > would lead to false positives? AFAIU it fails for commands that are defined outside of the source file that `provide's the feature. This happens with large packages, which incidentally are the ones that define more commands. So the heuristics fails precisely where the filtering is most needed. > Any false negatives can be augmented > with special (declare ...) instructions. But if we take that approach > as a basis, fewer commands might such annotations. Yes, it would save many annotations, but not enough to use it as a basis (see above). Also, commands within a feature that are intended as generally applicable require an annotation too (to leave them out of the filtering.) The approach has its merits, but it looks a bit too fragile to me.