From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.orgmode Subject: Re: How to handle both minor mode and major mode remapping a command? Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 17:38:05 +0000 Message-ID: <87ikrf7ev6.fsf@localhost> References: <87r0691asn.fsf@localhost> <8734imtdtf.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13337"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Nathan Collins , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 19 18:37:19 2024 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 1tOKSd-0003I6-9g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:37:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOKS3-0006Je-1P; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 12:36:43 -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 1tOKS1-0006Ie-IP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 12:36:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOKRz-0001T9-02 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 12:36:41 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B94240027 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:36:35 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1734629795; bh=MRumrQ+sghOYXaTGgtL+97+Ms4nAw9kr8rMJUJx5m+U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: From; b=AC1PhynPZZA5AdPiRthlgEg1dPWOig+X6vPEUSRcwF0fVF0lKJiID1PA1/tp0dLZ1 KQrKocLBMZfkRbu/5Mcq+zmmhNm4EvOn8bHP6V+khWNfh9lGvo+kiDNtpx/Ua9ElTt pXTPJEG4N2+spmMYfn7lR86lIFJErE+5RfXrfCgWjufjdrbiBGMO4hJcVzI4mJCtgO zIdUV8Y9i98GP29NNNw8SnR6/BY4EAramI5Erd560oNwd4JOfC6rut0RYuT5vQYfcQ dIoI2rxkk8VdyXEFmHgPVpuFbi4t4OZodfRlToNcO57boVeLi+Ksxc/9Jx2iE/W2iD MweZty6rg0USw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4YDd5G4S3Qz6twG; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:36:34 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <8734imtdtf.fsf@web.de> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:326752 gmane.emacs.orgmode:164247 Archived-At: Michael Heerdegen writes: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> I am wondering if there is some canonical way to handle similar scenarios >> recommended for major modes. >> >> Any suggestions? > > Why not, as in similar situations, define a `kill-line-function' > variable with default value `kill-line-default-function' which is a > function (more or less our current `kill-line'). > > Any mode that wants to modify the behavior would `add-function' on that > variable binding. We would have one single place where the thing is > controlled, while the behavior can still be modified by future modes. That will, of course, work. However, I feel that it will only solve this exact problem, but nothing more. Just in Org mode, we also need special handling of `move-beginning-of-line' and `move-end-of-line' for visual mode (for the same reasons). Does it mean that we need to introduce yet more "*-function" variables? It will not be scalable. What I was thinking about is some way for command remapping to: 1. remap overriding minor modes 2. be able to access commands (possible remapped) that are shadowed by current remapping Maybe what I want is advice flexibility for keymaps. (not sure) -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at