From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: position on changing defaults? Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:45:16 +0100 Message-ID: <87d4py3i8z.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> 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> <85od9j9if1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205412341 3421 80.91.229.12 (13 Mar 2008 12:45:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:45:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , miles@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 13 13:46:06 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 1JZmos-00058M-Is for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:46:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZmoJ-000309-EW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZmoE-0002zP-W9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:23 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZmoE-0002yp-Dl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZmoE-0002ym-6P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-relay.sonofon.dk ([212.88.64.25]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZmoD-0005d9-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:21 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 68803 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2008 12:45:17 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO kfs-lx.rd.rdm.cua.dk) (213.83.150.21) by 0 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2008 12:45:17 -0000 In-Reply-To: <85od9j9if1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Thu\, 13 Mar 2008 08\:45\:06 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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:92402 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > 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. I'm not sure about using a letter, but maybe a symbol like ^ at the head of the interactive spec is fairly clear. But will XEmacs ignore such an interactive spec symbol? If not, it becomes harder to make external packages with movement commands which want to honor the "shift-region" feature of GNU Emacs. The 'shift property on the command name is transparent to those who don't understand it... Using the shift property doesn't imply using a pre-command-hook -- it can just as well be done at the command loop. Also, checking for a shift property in the command loop (where we lookup the key sequence) seems a lot simpler _and cleaner_ than checking it inside call-interactively. Consider a case where some command (without the ^ spec) is bound to a shifted key, and it calls call-interactive on a movement command (with the ^ spec) -- then, should this activate the region or not? If this is done in the command loop, such issues are clearly resolved. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk