From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shift selection using interactive spec Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:31 +0100 Message-ID: <86od904kzo.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1206607320 2555 80.91.229.12 (27 Mar 2008 08:42:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, jared@hpalace.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 27 09:42:30 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 1Jengq-0002Ak-Gy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:42:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JengE-0008Uw-RG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jeng5-0008R6-4F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jeng1-0008OF-UX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jeng0-0008OA-HO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.quinscape.de ([212.29.44.217]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jeng0-0007ua-2m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:36 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 11504 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2008 08:41:33 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 27 Mar 2008 08:41:33 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 97ADA8FC40; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:31 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <47EB58A8.1040607@gmail.com> (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:19:52 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.3-2; AVE: 7.6.0.75; VDF: 7.0.3.79; host: quinx) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:93627 Archived-At: "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. -- David Kastrup