From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:30:30 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1182033160 11584 80.91.229.12 (16 Jun 2007 22:32:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 17 00:32:37 2007 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 1Hzgou-0004Q9-1G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:32:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzgot-00073c-C0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:32:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzgoq-00073N-CB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:32:32 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzgop-00073B-1B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:32:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzgoo-000738-Qs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:32:30 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hzgon-0005zn-NT; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:32:29 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (rgmgw2.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.111]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l5GMWRJ7003617; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:32:27 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l5GMWQlv017354; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:32:26 -0600 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-csvpn-gw1-141-144-64-42.vpn.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2934604051182033044; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:30:44 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:73123 Archived-At: > Command remapping is a way of replacing a command. This method is > much cleaner than redefining the function, but still worth avoiding > when possible. I think there is no need to replace these commands at > all, and I want to avoid it. I already said several times that: 1) users can do without the multi-command versions and 2) they will not have to, in any case, if you implement your automatic multi-commandness approach. > IIUC, your implementation limits a multi-command to using > completion in the `interactive' spec, > > I described a way to specify this using `interactive'. That does not > mean there are no other interfaces. It is trivial to have an API > for this. Having it in `interactive' also is an advantage in simplicity. It's not clear to me what you have in mind for this API. I have nothing against your proposal for `interactive', as far as it goes. > and (so far), it does not let you provide specific > functions for the 4 possible multi-command actions. > > Later in the message. ? Did you intend to send more here?