From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Re: command mode-specificity [was: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change...] Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:35:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87v9aqn5eq.fsf@gnus.org> <83h7ma7k5y.fsf@gnu.org> <87tuqa1ogn.fsf@gnus.org> <83tuqa5ug7.fsf@gnu.org> <87eehdy5ie.fsf@gnus.org> <87tuq98gdl.fsf@telefonica.net> <87pn0x8f8l.fsf@telefonica.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40379"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 18 18:51:40 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 1lCnSk-000AN4-Gv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:51:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34072 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCnSj-0000lB-Ey for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:51:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33520) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCnDX-00047I-Bw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:35:57 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:42059 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCnDS-0004lz-Jf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:35:55 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 24966 invoked by uid 3782); 18 Feb 2021 17:35:45 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15a07.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.90.7]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:35:44 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 25781 invoked by uid 1000); 18 Feb 2021 17:35:44 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pn0x8f8l.fsf@telefonica.net> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: 2.1.23 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:265170 Archived-At: Hello, Óscar. On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 18:20:26 +0100, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 17:55:50 +0100, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > >> Alan Mackenzie writes: > >> > What about commands used by a small number of modes, but that set of > >> > modes is only known at runtime? > >> > Are we supposed to amend a command's interactive spec at runtime? > >> No. > > What, then? Do you have a positive suggestion? > It would be nice to update the info at runtime, but IMO it is beyond > what is reasonable to ask. In other words, this is a flaw in the idea of abusing the interactive spec for miscellaneous information. > This feature works on the pretense that if a command has a real > potential for being used outside of its mode, it shall not be annotated > as mode-specific. The scenario you described indicates that the > application realm of the command is open-ended. Not particularly. I was thinking of commands such as c-toggle-comment-style, whose realm is strictly constrained. > In the future the system can be expanded so a mode can declare that it > uses specific commands (or all of them) from some other mode, but that > is not required now for the filtering to be effective. No, not from some other mode. We're talking about commands shared by a set of modes known only at runtime. If the list of modes cannot be updated at runtime, this is a deficiency in the design. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).