From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shift selection using interactive spec Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:57:38 +0100 Message-ID: <47EBA7D2.2010100@gmail.com> References: <87k5k69p92.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87bq5gytbi.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8763vndi0r.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87hcf6ratt.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878x0if9ul.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87od9e9gnx.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87skyo5bvk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87skynrin5.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87iqzju0lq.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <851w5xx5ya.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ve3993dt.fsf@jurta.org> <47EA37C7.7080502@gmail.com> <47EADCC4.2000207@gmail.com> <854pasvedl.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <47EB58A8.1040607@gmail.com> <86od904kzo.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1206626371 7757 80.91.229.12 (27 Mar 2008 13:59:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:59:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, jared@hpalace.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 27 14:59:52 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 1Jescr-0003Ab-Cx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:58:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JescF-0007w7-Vo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JescC-0007w2-75 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:58:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JescA-0007vo-JK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:57:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JescA-0007vj-CO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:57:58 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jesc2-00035b-M2; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:57:51 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:65297 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Jesc0-0001Vz-4r; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:57:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <86od904kzo.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080326-3, 2008-03-26), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Jesc0-0001Vz-4r. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1Jesc0-0001Vz-4r 842dc3c76ade71b31c27fc061ac685c3 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:93634 Archived-At: David Kastrup wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" writes: >>> >>>> Richard Stallman wrote: >>>>> I think that `interactive' codes are much better than symbol properties >>>>> for defining the meaning of a command. >>>> Yes, but the problem here is rather that you may need to redefine >>>> which commands should deactivate the mark. Doing that with a symbol >>>> property makes it much more flexible. >>> Read "flexible" as "conveniently hot-patchable around things not >>> designed for it". We have a policy not to use advice (another hotpatch >>> facility) for components distributed as part of Emacs because we want >>> all information pertaining to a particular function accessible and >>> readable from a single location in a clear manner. >>> >>> I don't see this any different. If there is a need for a user to >>> hot-patch around functions not designed for it, advice is still >>> available. >> But I believe this will only affect things on the command level. Is >> not that a big difference? > > The "command level" is distinguished by interactive forms. So there is > a difference in that we _already_ have a standard location where the > command level behavior is determined, namely the interactive form. > > If people really want to hot-patch command behavior manually by poking > around with properties rather than advice, the 'interactive-form > property already provides enough leeway for that. > > I don't see that we want to open the floodgates for all sort of bypasses > for command-specific properties attached to something other than the > interactive form. Can you provide an example of how to change the interactive form for an existing function (without using advice of course)?