From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.. Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:15:07 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87lm6xiruh.fsf@computer.localdomain> <5xu1liwmu6.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208261526.g7QFQX624783@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xu1lgu1e4.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208271621.g7RGLNm30516@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xhehfe3aj.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <87d6rzpybd.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1030886919 8307 127.0.0.1 (1 Sep 2002 13:28:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 13:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: storm@cua.dk, monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, deego@glue.umd.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17lUmM-00029s-00 for ; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 15:28:38 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17lVK6-0006ya-00 for ; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 16:03:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17lUno-0007qx-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:30:08 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17lUZO-0003qc-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:15:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17lUZJ-0003pR-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:15:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17lUZI-0003p1-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:15:08 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 17lUZH-0006LG-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:15:07 -0400 Original-To: miles@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87d6rzpybd.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> (message from Miles Bader on 31 Aug 2002 11:16:38 +0900) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7262 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7262 It is conceptually simple to have command A that ends a macro and command B that executes a macro. It is also conceptually simple to have one command that ends a macro and executes it, and have two key bindings for that one command. But it is rather strange to have one command that either ends the macro or executes it, and another command that only ends it. All else being equal, it would be better to replace them with one command that does both jobs. Now consider my suggestion (have `C-x e' end any currently-being-defined macro definition and _also_ execute the macro once) using the same criteria: (A) Conceptually? Note that using my definition, both bindings (`C-x e' and `C-x )') retain their current simple one-binding-one-operation meanings. There is a way to look at this which makes it coherent. It could mean, "Execute the keyboard macro, closing it first if necessary." That's not what it does now, though, is it?