[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shift selection using interactive spec
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Shift selection using interactive spec |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:05:23 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> If CUA-mode chooses to provide an additional futzing interface for
>> meddling with external packages, this does not preclude us from using a
>> proper interface within Emacs itself.
>
> David, thanks for the example you provided earlier of how to change
> the interactive form. However to me it looks like this can not be used
> directly. It is too complicated.
Sigh. I am sick of all those strawmen. It is not complicated to put an
additional character into an interactive string when appropriate. If I
state that we already have ways to do ugly things and don't need another
one for that reason alone, that does not mean that I consider those ways
the proper thing to do.
What you are complaining about that there is no simple ad-hoc way to
patch up functions with _separated_ code when they are not actually
prepared to do the right thing.
Such ad-hoc patchery can be done in a manner of ways, starting with
advice over going through the interactive form.
It is easy enough to write and put a _function_ in cua-mode.el, _iff_
such patchery is desired, to perform this patchery and adjust all the
documentation strings appropriately in that process. Whether or not
this is a complicated operation or not is utterly _irrelevant_: if it is
deemed important, a function doing the job can be provided with an
interface that is _easy_ to the user, regardless of what it does behind
the scenes.
Tacking a property to a symbol is doing a _half-baked_ job, and it is
plainly insane that people suggest C-h f trying to list all properties
on a symbol, on the notion that there might be some crazy undocumented
ad-hoc mechanism somehow interpreting some property on a symbol which
has its function cell set to some function.
This is utterly crazy. Emacs is supposed to be self-documenting. We
don't _want_ undocumented side-effects as a way to manipulate something
in the vicinity of a function, in a manner that will easily break
function aliases and other completely natural things.
If people want an easy way to mess with functions _after_ they have been
defined for this purpose, cua-mode can implement a proper function doing
this job. There is no necessity that this function needs to be simple,
or be called "put".
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, (continued)
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Juri Linkov, 2008/03/29
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, David Kastrup, 2008/03/30
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/30
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, M Jared Finder, 2008/03/28
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, David Kastrup, 2008/03/28
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/28
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/28
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/28
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Chong Yidong, 2008/03/28
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, David Kastrup, 2008/03/28
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Juri Linkov, 2008/03/29
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, David Kastrup, 2008/03/30
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Juri Linkov, 2008/03/30
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Juri Linkov, 2008/03/26
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Chong Yidong, 2008/03/26
- Re: Shift selection using interactive spec, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/27