On 10 August 2013 14:45, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:

> On 09.08.2013 17:52, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
>> That's lucky for those poor minor modes: it's always really difficult to
>> find good bindings for minor modes because there are very few bindings
>> reserved for them, and they have the added problem of having to cohabit
>> with other minor modes.
>>
>
> I don't think it's that big of a problem. Minor minor modes either do, or
> should allow the user to customize the prefix. So they can change it in
> case of a conflict. And anyway, if a minor mode picks `C-c #' as its
> prefix, it's the major mode that is screwed, because minor mode bindings
> trump major mode ones.
>
>
>  Usually major modes prefer to use bindings which start with C-c
>> C-<something>.  There are usually many such keys available and they're
>> pretty easy to type since you can just keep the control key pressed.
>>
>
> Ok, here's a possible set of bindings:
>
> (define-key map (kbd "C-c C-'") 'ruby-tools-to-single-quote-**string)

(define-key map (kbd "C-c C-\"") 'ruby-tools-to-double-quote-**string)
> (define-key map (kbd "C-c C-:") 'ruby-tools-to-symbol)
> (define-key map (kbd "C-c C-;") 'ruby-tools-clear-string)
> (define-key map (kbd "C-c C-#") 'ruby-tools-interpolate)
>
> The last one is the most problematic: it's supposed to reduce the amount
> of keystrokes the user types, but typing `# { } C-b' is not that longer,
> and with `autopair-mode' enabled (or `electric-pair-mode', I suppose'), we
> only have to type `# {' anyway.
> Maybe we should just drop it.
>

The interpolate functionality seems redundant to me, so I'd suggest
dropping it.


>
> Here's another issue: ruby-tools comes with a suite of tests written using
> ecukes, which is not included with Emacs, and would be incompatible with
> the current test directory layout anyway.
>
> Should they be rewritten using ERT? Or do we drop them and risk divergence
> from upstream and code breakage?
>

Having ERT tests is never a bad idea. That said I don't think there will be
a risk of upstream divergence, since I'm pretty sure after ruby-tools is
merged into ruby-mode the existing project will be decommissioned.


>
> N.B.: Out of two similar repositories, one with tests and one without,
> it's natural for me to consider the former one as upstream.
>

But if our case there won't be to similar repos, as noted above - most
likely the current project will cease to exist.