From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Current mode command discovery Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:18:50 +0200 Message-ID: <83im6r98qd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87v9aubm96.fsf@gnus.org> <83a6s6bkrg.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtw6bkjo.fsf@gnus.org> <838s7qbjn2.fsf@gnu.org> <87eehi820x.fsf@gnus.org> <83v9at9xel.fsf@gnu.org> <87wnv8xlqa.fsf@gnus.org> <838s7o9g90.fsf@gnu.org> <87im6revhq.fsf@tcd.ie> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13554"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 16 19:19:15 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 1lC4wN-0003Jz-Fr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:19:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42578 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4wM-0008Cn-JY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:19:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60578) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4vt-0007md-Qu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:18:45 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57451) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4vs-0006Rl-W4; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:18:45 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4924 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4vs-0002Q8-BE; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:18:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87im6revhq.fsf@tcd.ie> (contovob@tcd.ie) 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:264909 Archived-At: > From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" > Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:08:17 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:04:13 +0100 > >> > >> This thread is only about this theoretical new command. > > > > Then how about if we stop mentioning M-x in this thread? It is > > utterly confusing to mention M-x when we actually are talking about > > something else. Some of the suggestions voiced here made me nervous > > because I thought people were suggesting changes in how M-x works; now > > I'm relieved to learn that no change to M-x's MO was meant. > > Hasn't the default M-x behaviour already changed thanks to > read-extended-command-predicate? It seems like indeed M-x behavior has changed. So my fears were not unfounded, sadly. This is an incompatible behavior change, and it should IMO be OFF by default. Worse, NEWS doesn't call out this behavior of M-x completion, and neither does the manual, at least not clearly enough (the reference to read-extended-command-predicate is too vague and doesn't mention completion). I'm very uneasy about this change.