From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: Use "r" key for 'cran' action in 'import' popup. Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 22:22:04 +0200 Message-ID: <87mvx4607n.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87si6y7898.fsf@gmail.com> <87twrd7yrp.fsf@gnu.org> <87613szpdc.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39154) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXEXo-0000wM-Ty for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 16:22:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXEXn-000275-BL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 16:22:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87613szpdc.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Wed, 02 Sep 2015 20:45:51 +0300") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2015-09-02 16:10 +0300) wrote: > >> Alex Kost skribis: >> >>> From 1cc6871abf3d53ad5702fde5570df8a61a945010 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Alex Kost >>> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:10:41 +0300 >>> Subject: [PATCH] emacs: Use "r" key for 'cran' action in 'import' popup. >>> >>> * emacs/guix-command.el (guix-command-improve-import-argument): New >>> variable and function. >>> (guix-command-argument-improvers): Add it. >> >> Definitely. >> >> Should there be some sort of automatic disambiguation mechanism? > > Automatic? I think it should be defined by a human what key to assign. > How can it be automatically decided what key should be used for "cpan" > and what for "cran"? Currently the key is just defined by the first > letter and I think it is the maximal automatization that should be done. > If it's not enough, than we should solve disambiguation manually, don't > you agree? Yes, you=E2=80=99re right. Doing things automatically would have the advan= tage of not missing collisions, but doing it sensibly may prove to be hard, as you note. Ludo=E2=80=99.