Re: Enhancements to "minor-mode-map-alist" functionality.

[Kim F. Storm]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:

> > "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> > > I haven't heard any comment about my proposal to use `menu-item'
> > > bindings with a :enable setting in order to get conditional bindings
> > > (this doesn't currently work, but it should be pretty easy to make
> > > it work).
> > > Would it help you solve your problems ?
> > 
> > Considering that cua has approx 100 bindings in 7 keymaps,
> > it seems like absolute overkill IMO to condition each of those
> > 100 bindings individually instead of just the 7 keymaps which
> > contain those bindings...
> 
> Is that 7*100 bindings or 7*14 bindings ?

It is 8 + 7 + 2 + 10 + 17 + 60 + 16 bindings...

> How much overlap ?

None.

> How many different conditions would there be ?

There are 7 different conditions.

> For the sake of describe-key, I think it's better to have fewer bindings
> (with the dispatch done more often in the bound function rather
> than in the :enable conditionals) so that the docstring can describe what
> happens when.

I don't think you will see any difference whether this is done
via conditions in the minor-mode-map-alist (or emulation-mode-map-alist),
or by conditioning each command individually.

Also, I don't see why it is better to eval the various conditions 100 times
rather than just 7 times?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk