From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: position on changing defaults? Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200803050637.m256bXL3008361@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <87hcfkdhqk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87d4q8sq9c.fsf@jurta.org> <8763w0n393.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87bq5p3x8y.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205096130 1948 80.91.229.12 (9 Mar 2008 20:55:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, miles@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 09 21:55:57 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 1JYSYi-0006Wi-33 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:55:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JYSY9-0003Vl-Rq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:55:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYSWf-0002KK-57 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYSWc-0002I3-7q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JYSWb-0002Hs-Lj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JYSWb-00043R-A3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:41 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JYSWZ-000198-S2; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:39 -0400 In-reply-to: <87bq5p3x8y.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> (storm@cua.dk) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:91914 Archived-At: The argument against using pre-command-hook and post-command-hook is efficiency That is one argument, but I posted other arguments. Also note that the de-shifting mechanism is more efficient because it would only run for shift keys, whereas pre-command-hook and post-command-hook run for every command. However, I don't like the de-shifting approach because that imposes a meaning on all shift commands that cannot be overridden by rebinding them. I don't think we should do that, regardless of the precise mechanism.