From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: was a command called via M-x? Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:37:06 +0800 Message-ID: <8738dxo77x.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87ha2gpert.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1405773468 3757 80.91.229.3 (19 Jul 2014 12:37:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:37:48 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 19 14:37:41 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X8TtU-00033L-AM for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:37:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54189 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X8TtT-0001UH-NV for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:37:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33512) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X8TtE-0001UB-CB for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:37:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X8Tt8-0004Kt-Op for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:37:24 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:48447) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X8Tt8-0004Kp-Hu for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:37:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X8Tt7-0002ss-P2 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:37:17 +0200 Original-Received: from 111.197.167.73 ([111.197.167.73]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:37:17 +0200 Original-Received: from eric by 111.197.167.73 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:37:17 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 36 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 111.197.167.73 User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:onfUjTlzl9o0u3vLDaRk/QJxFM8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:98789 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: >> (let* ((command-name (symbol-name this-command)) >> (pref-arg current-prefix-arg) >> (keys (this-command-keys)) >> (key-string (key-description keys)) >> (title-string (if pref-arg >> (format "%s %s" pref-arg key-string) >> (format "%s" key-string)))) >> (alert command-name :title title-string)) >> >> I don't want to just check for "RET" and replace it with "M-x", because >> the command might very well have been called with "RET". Do I have any >> other way of knowing for sure that the command was called using >> `execute-extended-command'? last-command doesn't seem to get it >> either... > > You might want to show more of how your code is invoked etc. > > `execute-extended-command' changes `this-command'. The command invoked > by `execute-extended-command' is instead the value of `real-this-command', > and you can get its key binding (if there is one) using: > (where-is-internal real-this-command overriding-local-map t) instead of > (this-command-keys). > > But if you want `execute-extended-command' or `M-x' instead of that > information, then you will probably need to either advise that function > or (depending on when you need the info) advise `read-extended-command', > recording for yourself the fact that `execute-extended-command' was > invoked. Hmm, that's sounding like maybe more work than it's worth. Let me clean up the module as it is, and have another hard look at it. Thanks, Eric