From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Psionic K Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Delegating user-reserved key binding space definition to users Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 05:26:21 -0600 Message-ID: References: <57b69c22e167d429d21bb969feb22887@webmail.orcon.net.nz> <877czikyfa.fsf@localhost> <87o7sthrwx.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ddb64805ee720638" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5860"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers To: Ihor Radchenko Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 27 12:27:26 2022 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 1ozFok-0001MW-JY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 12:27:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ozFo5-0003aL-2i; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 06:26:45 -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 1ozFny-0003Zj-Dp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 06:26:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ozFnv-0000lD-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 06:26:37 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id q12so3867448pfn.10 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:26:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=positron.solutions; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rdm6F614iAZdHf82UcRdSrHYce2+1n7fVC5auu4rsWI=; b=l+7yqDedlXjqigxMFjEoj21THTTsq10UhIYQo/NAUMpFz0TZh4PDpcNXgyNgInyzPV pmKxf74vSsYQiZSuTYGvIGc/XqxuMB7MjQ0BvXmihBulM3dj0ziWxyWzgFgPlsU8pHL9 i8Q59W/HWVe4P0Byn9qGTF45QLAPX96IlBXey+6ANsBTpnWkxcULTAEnhHSqZulYo5sN Uj3OuXoSWA7IzGJ4HcHv0A8AuDywOSwgXrEJsIUpcGEw9BvkZVAdtTevT+2B8JmPEXBu qNaWwQWeQTT4nSwQPh9yJ/r+bF8UFXAG/ZkpYaRHNbSK2z9alMEYJx9x8oS8a44i2+S+ t7Og== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rdm6F614iAZdHf82UcRdSrHYce2+1n7fVC5auu4rsWI=; b=Rt//cFvbbvZHPa2tFfCj6/mi9S322X3SZntogpHDo6mwqeIUyPSMmLCMXN2Cu9NPrR fYkw8DHnm2SfDxr1HvyyKz9U+/c7s7JTXi3r+w5qtxXLF5QNRlz7xx1qb0jTM8bHN6Ml 4Rt8/qjGi8wM4C32Utf14nx8nirOYiuJmcPmbmPh9NomzHI40fXOdSQnLSPQXgvrlNQ7 9B241gFNWwsjtlu5gjbRXheTrXlUpjNyqzbx7bHLM+wYonipoTJ0jyCfm4bfRhOmb+Ox dvXA60Etlldh3hkilUbFLpPNk7zUCvJyX3L2YTi00OWL9vbtRUXH1PEkqJlSKs7/C8BN qEQg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pn4s1a8BDn2wYVjdGmyVXAbXj2sT0WS/g+Rmdsv5JS2Z/UH6Ee8 mA8kAhcgf2QAJoXNVf6Lnu4yfNC25GplHNl/xzGVVw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5m6+ro70Tg3lFhMAZNj1EZszggLGl7XFFmC83BDSSR7XLqWHz3M+F0oidaiCICp5+lEGMAq/epwIhkfjBVnSw= X-Received: by 2002:a63:580a:0:b0:477:12e3:6e1c with SMTP id m10-20020a63580a000000b0047712e36e1cmr25619551pgb.126.1669548392422; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:26:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87o7sthrwx.fsf@localhost> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f; envelope-from=exec@positron.solutions; helo=mail-pf1-x42f.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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:300623 Archived-At: --000000000000ddb64805ee720638 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I tested remap shadowing just now, and it works in 28.2. A higher precedence remap will shadow a lower precedence remap. This means the user can bind a sequence to an abstract command, give it a remap in the global map, and have a different remap in a mode map. When the user rebinds the abstract command, everything goes with it. > I suggest introducing a notion of "generalized" commands. Such commands will represent common actions executed by users (like move to next/previous element). Major and minor modes can then define specific implementation of the actions. We can do this with shadowing in higher precedence maps. As above, this works for command remapping, but the issue is that we need a solid place to remap to, not a command that the user might replace. If the user defines a command like "next-line-unfold" in the the global map, a mode generating a map by looking for "next-line" would not find the correct target. This is the situation today, with ad-hoc imitation of the default global map. Modes map to sequences without knowing what the user wants those sequences to be. We basically need a convention to name the keys through abstract commands instead of using sequences, which really are zero indication of what the user wants that key to do. Binding sequences to abstract commands completely solves this. >You cannot achieve this by simple remapping, AFAIK. Each major mode map would shadow the global map's shadow of the "user-right" abstract command. Instead of the abstract command sequence remapping to the global concrete command, the major mode's concrete command remap would take precedence. Totally works. On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 11:44 PM Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: > > >> I suggest introducing a notion of "generalized" commands. Such commands > >> will represent common actions executed by users (like move to > >> next/previous element). Major and minor modes can then define specific > >> implementation of the actions. > > > > I think it's a non-starter because it requires foresight: only those > > commands defined with this mechanism will be extensible. I agree that > > an additional level of indirection is probably necessary, but I suspect > > it needs to be placed elsewhere. > > Auto-remapping will need some kind of grouping for commands one way or > another. There is no way we can do it auto-magically. Developer or users > should decide. > > Currently, the commands in major mods are bound to specific key > bindings. The bindings are chosen either arbitrarily, according to major > mode author preferences, or according to semi-established default key > binding scheme (like C-f/C-M-f/C-n/C-v/etc). Either way, trying to > re-bind commands in multiple major modes is not easy. > > Note that a number of commands like `comment-forward' already expect > major modes to fit into an established, pre-defined framework by > tweaking the `comment-forward' customization according to the major > mode. This also requires a foresight. > > My suggestion is somewhat similar to the existing practices of major > mode writing where the author is required to configure comment handling, > paragraph handling, sentence rules, imenu, etc. > > However, what I suggest is more flexible as it does not require Emacs > core developers to provide extensive configuration mechanism for, say, > `next-line' individually; `previous-line' individually, ... > Instead, it will be sufficient to declare generalized command and then > rely on major modes to hook in. Users should be able to do it easily > too. > > > [ FWIW, you can get similar results with the current setup using > > command remapping. ] > > You are absolutely right: when a major mode command is related to > built-in command in command map. > > However, some major modes introduce new concepts. For example, think > about paredit-forward-slurp-sexp, which can be an equivalent of Org's > heading promotion or moving word at point forward in sentences. How > could you remap to group these 3 very different yet similar (for some > users) commands together? > > I imagine that users can define a generalized command "move right" > themselves, give it a default binding in overriding global map, and then > make `paredit-forward-slurp-sexp', `org-promote', and `transpose-words' > be selected when running "move right" depending on the active major > mode. You cannot achieve this by simple remapping, AFAIK. > > -- > Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, > Org mode contributor, > Learn more about Org mode at . > Support Org development at , > or support my work at > -- Psionic K Software Engineer *Positron Solutions * --000000000000ddb64805ee720638 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I tested remap shadowing just now, and it works in 28= .2.=C2=A0 A higher precedence remap will shadow a lower precedence remap.= =C2=A0 This means the user can bind a sequence to an abstract command, give= it a remap in the global map, and have a different remap in a mode map.=C2= =A0 When the user rebinds the abstract command, everything goes with it.
> I suggest introducing a notion of "generalized" commands. Such co= mmands
will represent common actions executed by users (like move to
next/previous element). Major and minor modes can then define specific
implementation of the actions.

We can do= this with shadowing in higher precedence maps.=C2=A0 As above, this works = for command remapping, but the issue is that we need a solid place to remap= to, not a command that the user might replace.=C2=A0 If the user defines a= command like "next-line-unfold" in the the global map, a mode ge= nerating a map by looking for "next-line" would not find the corr= ect target.

This is the situation today, with = ad-hoc imitation of the default global map.=C2=A0 Modes map to sequences wi= thout knowing what the user wants those sequences to be.=C2=A0 We basically= need a convention to name the keys through abstract commands instead of us= ing sequences, which really are zero indication of what the user wants that= key to do.=C2=A0 Binding sequences to abstract commands completely solves = this.

>You cannot achieve this by simple remapp= ing, AFAIK.

Each major mode map would shadow the global m= ap's shadow of the "user-right" abstract command.=C2=A0 Inste= ad of the abstract command sequence remapping to the global concrete comman= d, the major mode's concrete command remap would take precedence.=C2=A0= Totally works.


On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at= 11:44 PM Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> wrote:
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wri= tes:

>> I suggest introducing a notion of "generalized" commands= . Such commands
>> will represent common actions executed by users (like move to
>> next/previous element). Major and minor modes can then define spec= ific
>> implementation of the actions.
>
> I think it's a non-starter because it requires foresight: only tho= se
> commands defined with this mechanism will be extensible.=C2=A0 I agree= that
> an additional level of indirection is probably necessary, but I suspec= t
> it needs to be placed elsewhere.

Auto-remapping will need some kind of grouping for commands one way or
another. There is no way we can do it auto-magically. Developer or users should decide.

Currently, the commands in major mods are bound to specific key
bindings. The bindings are chosen either arbitrarily, according to major mode author preferences, or according to semi-established default key
binding scheme (like C-f/C-M-f/C-n/C-v/etc). Either way, trying to
re-bind commands in multiple major modes is not easy.

Note that a number of commands like `comment-forward' already expect major modes to fit into an established, pre-defined framework by
tweaking the `comment-forward' customization according to the major
mode. This also requires a foresight.

My suggestion is somewhat similar to the existing practices of major
mode writing where the author is required to configure comment handling, paragraph handling, sentence rules, imenu, etc.

However, what I suggest is more flexible as it does not require Emacs
core developers to provide extensive configuration mechanism for, say,
`next-line' individually; `previous-line' individually, ...
Instead, it will be sufficient to declare generalized command and then
rely on major modes to hook in. Users should be able to do it easily
too.

> [ FWIW, you can get similar results with the current setup using
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0command remapping.=C2=A0 ]

You are absolutely right: when a major mode command is related to
built-in command in command map.

However, some major modes introduce new concepts. For example, think
about paredit-forward-slurp-sexp, which can be an equivalent of Org's heading promotion or moving word at point forward in sentences. How
could you remap to group these 3 very different yet similar (for some
users) commands together?

I imagine that users can define a generalized command "move right"= ;
themselves, give it a default binding in overriding global map, and then make `paredit-forward-slurp-sexp', `org-promote', and `transpose-wo= rds'
be selected when running "move right" depending on the active maj= or
mode. You cannot achieve this by simple remapping, AFAIK.

--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,=
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>


--
=
--000000000000ddb64805ee720638--