bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#13687: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r111878: * lisp/replace.el(read-regexp):


From: Jambunathan K
Subject: bug#13687: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r111878: * lisp/replace.el(read-regexp): Let-bind `default' to the first
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:33:56 +0530
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Suspend your judgement.  I don't like to discuss (or rather I cannot
discuss) in abstract.  It is so error prone.  I will show my wares
tomorrow.


"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

>> > E.g., in the code I cited, if a user does not want the same 
>> > defaulting behavior for commands `occur', `how-many', etc.,
>> > she can set option `search/replace-default-fn' to a function
>> > that distinguishes them (e.g., using `this-command', as
>> > Jambunathan suggested).
>> 
>> Interesting suggestion there.
>> 
>> This makes me think that there is no need for multiple
>> `hi-lock-read-regexp-defaults-function' and a separate
>> `occur-read-regexp-defaults-function' etc.  But a single
>> `read-regexp-defaults-function' that cases on `this-command'.
>
> The question, as I said, is whether it makes sense, for the particular 
> commands
> that we group to use the same option, to provide the default regexp (or other
> string) in the same way.
>
> I can't speak to whether that is the case for hi-lock, occur, etc.  But if it 
> is
> true, then yes, a single option for such a group of commands makes sense.
>
>> The function can return a symbol token like `t' for
>> `this-command's which it doesn't want to meddle with but
>> return nil or a regexp or list of regexps for commands it
>> wants to insinuate.
>
> That is not what I suggested.  I suggested that the option value be a function
> that returns a string to use as the default value when reading user input.
>
> What I said in the passage you cite is that that function (the value of the
> option) could, if the user so wants, itself test `this-command' and provide a
> different string depending on the current command.
>
>> Is there any problem with this 
>> `read-regexp-defaults-function' approach?
>
> I think you're suggesting that the option value be a function that returns t 
> or
> nil, instead of returning a default-value string.  It's not clear to me how a
> given command such as `occur' would make use of that Boolean return value.
>
> As I noted before, I would not _encourage_ users to use a dispatching function
> as the option value, but that would not (could not) be prevented.  They can do
> anything they want using any function they want.
>
> The out-of-the-box design should make a reasonable assumption about which
> commands to group (i.e., which should use the same option).
>
> If it is expected that some command that reads a regexp would generally be
> better off with a different defaulting behavior, then that command should not
> use the group option.  It could use its own, similar option, with a different
> default option value (a different default-value-providing function).  Or it
> could hard-code its defaulting, or whatever.
>
> The use of a function to dispatch according to the current command should be
> exceptional, IMO - only a fallback possibility and not something to be
> encouraged.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]