From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:24:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1183436652 25905 80.91.229.12 (3 Jul 2007 04:24:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 04:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 03 06:24:08 2007 connect(): Connection refused 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 1I5Zvr-0007B7-7Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:24:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5Zvq-0003ev-N3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:24:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I5Zvm-0003d3-KE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:24:02 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I5Zvl-0003cY-Nr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:24:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5Zvl-0003cJ-7b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:24:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I5Zvl-0005qh-0R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:24:01 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I5Zvk-0007bE-Lm; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:24:00 -0400 In-reply-to: X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:74217 Archived-At: Your approach makes each command definition that uses "!" in the interactive spec deal with the list (collective) and non-list (individual) cases together, in a conditional in its body. That's the purpose of `!': so you can distinguish those two cases. If you don't want to distinguish them, then you don't write `!'. Then the command gets called once for each argument. I think it is a simple feature that makes it possible to implement, in a clean way, all the multi-command features that we have discussed. This still assumes your automatic treatment of multicommands via `call-interactively'. Exactly. That's a better method. I think it is a simple feature that makes it possible to implement, in a clean way, all the multi-command features that we have discussed. The way I do it now separates each of the action functions (the action "implementations", in your terms) from the command definition itself: (defun command () (interactive) (let ((candidate-action-fn 'action-one) (all-candidates-action-fn 'action-all)) (action-one (read-file-name "File: ")))) That's why my method is better. (Note that this example reads a minibuffer argument inside the body of the command, contrary to Emacs convention, which says you should read them inside `interactive'.)