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 19:57:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83h7ma7k5y.fsf@gnu.org> <87tuqa1ogn.fsf@gnus.org> <83tuqa5ug7.fsf@gnu.org> <87eehdy5ie.fsf@gnus.org> <87tuq98gdl.fsf@telefonica.net> <87pn0x8f8l.fsf@telefonica.net> <83wnv540xq.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11186"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 18 21:12:15 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 1lCpeo-0002mS-Hg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:12:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59780 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCpen-0000MP-DX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:12:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41408) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCpR6-0005eI-Km for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:58:04 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:45991 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCpR4-0000Ds-17 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:58:04 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 20732 invoked by uid 3782); 18 Feb 2021 19:57:59 -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 20:57:59 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 31979 invoked by uid 1000); 18 Feb 2021 19:57:59 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83wnv540xq.fsf@gnu.org> 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:265190 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 21:42:57 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:35:44 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > 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. > No, this issue is common to _any_ implementation of tagging commands > with relevant mode, not just the implementation via the interactive > spec. If the tagging information were on, say, a symbol property, there would be no great problem in updating it at run time. > > > 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. > I don't think this problem is real, because the idea is that commands > which are relevant only to a _single_ mode will be tagged by that > mode. Commands which are useful in several modes will remain > untagged. So CC Mode, and in particular, third party modes derived from it, will remain outside the scope of this feature? That surely cannot be the intention? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).