Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

M Jared Finder <jared@hpalace.com> writes:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>     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.
>>
>> Why is it important to be able change whether a command deactivates
>> the mark without changing the command itself?
>>   
> It'd be a disaster to have to restate the whole command or even just
> the interactive spec to make commands CUA-mode aware.

Why?  We are not talking about "CUA-mode aware" but about mark
deactivation.

> Right now, if I am using an external package that is not fully
> CUA-mode aware (like CC-mode),

cc-mode is not an external package.  It is distributed as part of Emacs.

> all I need to do is:
>> (let ((move-fns '(c-forward-conditional c-backward-conditional
>>                   c-down-conditional c-up-conditional
>>                   c-down-conditional-with-else
>>                   c-up-conditional-with-else
>>                   c-beginning-of-statement c-end-of-statement)))
>>   (require 'cua-base)
>>   (dolist (symbol move-fns)
>>     (unless (eq 'move (get symbol 'CUA))
>>       (display-warning 'emacs (format "Adding CUA property to `%s'."
>> symbol))
>>       (setf (get symbol 'CUA) 'move))))
> If I had to restate the interactive spec, this would not be nearly as
> easy.  Please, listen to the users of CUA-mode and do *not* make this
> any harder.

If CUA-mode chooses to provide an additional futzing interface for
meddling with external packages, this does not preclude us from using a
proper interface within Emacs itself.

This is quite similar to the usage of advice: it is convenient for
_messing_ with things that are not prepared for it.  But that does not
make it a good idea for _regular_ interaction.

-- 
David Kastrup