Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Thomas Lord wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> > I translate it to something like this in elisp code:
> >
> > ;;;; pre-pre
> > ...
>
> There's no need for a pre-pre hook or
> for a test of whether the last sequence
> was shifted.   You're using the "three variables"
> correctly, but there are simpler ways to use them
> to achieve the same effect.

Yes, I use pre-pre just as a name for a position in the command loop. It 
could be a hook, but need of course not be implemented that way.

Sorry for writing the code a bit un-lispish ;-)

> > ;;;; post-post
> > ;;
> > (if buffer-was-changed
> >     (setq preserved-tm nil)
> >   (unless preserved-tm
> >     (when user-wants-it
> >       (setq preserved-tm maybe-preserved-tm))))
> > (setq tm preserved-tm)
>
>
> No.   "buffer-was-changed" has nothing to do with
> anything here.  Sorry.

Thanks for the clarification.

> Nor is there any need
> for a "post-post" hook.   The command loop can
> simply, unconditionally, copy tentative-mark to
> maybe-preserved-... before running a command,
> and preserved-... to tentative-mark before returning
> control to the user -- two unconditional "setq"s in
> the loop.   None of this "buffer-was-changed" stuff.
> Those distinctions happen elsewhere in this scheme,
> and on a different basis.
>
> -t
>
>
>
> -t