From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Adam Porter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suggestion for improving ergonomics of repeat-maps: define-repeat-map Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:29:45 -0500 Message-ID: <87v92df2om.fsf@alphapapa.net> References: <874katproz.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87h7etsjxx.fsf@gnus.org> <446cdb8d-7075-4942-bfbe-74653dd32a03@www.fastmail.com> <875yudqjwi.fsf@gnus.org> <878rz9gnxw.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87fsthnmpv.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25209"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 04 13:31:07 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 1mXMBW-0006Ll-LO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 13:31:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52546 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXMBV-0006Md-LR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 07:31:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37130) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXMAQ-0005cm-P8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 07:29:58 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:48682) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXMAP-0006K8-0t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 07:29:58 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mXMAM-0004rM-39 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 13:29:54 +0200 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:276171 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Doesn't the manual document the syntax of both of these? I'm sorry, you're right, it does, the key being in these lines: @defun define-keymap &key options... &rest pairs... @defmac defvar-keymap name options &rest defs That's what I get for trying to read the raw texinfo in a diff buffer. > But I guess it's a bit confusing how the syntaxes are similar but > different? I went back and forth a number of time on the syntax -- > define-keymap is a function, so it can't do the function-line macro > syntax that defvar-keymap can (which is better). But having the first > argument of define-keymap be a list (which would be preferable in most > ways) just looked awkward. > > (define-keymap (list :full t) > ...) > > But I'm open to changing it if it's too confusing the way it is now. If users see this function and macro as "siblings," I could imagine their slightly different signatures being confusing. I don't know if that would justify changing them to be more similar. To be honest, I was surprised to see defvar-keymap as a separate macro. I was expecting, e.g. define-keymap to be used inside a defvar, something like: (defvar foo-map (define-keymap ...) "Docstring for foo-map.") Not to complain about having the macro, of course. :)