Re: Using setq to obtain a symbol from a list, so that I can assign a function to it

[Timothy Hobbs]

Pascal Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
> but it's probably better to but these function in a hash-table than in
> the value slots of the symbols.
I am curious, why would this be better?  I find that when an elisp program 
defines functions outside of the standard lisp symbols reading and modifying 
them becomes difficult or impossible.  In the simplest scenario, simply finding 
out how functionality is implemented, I cannot use C-h f to jump to the doc 
string and ultimately, through that handy little hyperlink, source code.  In a 
more involved case, I cannot advise, or redefine the function.

> Finally, emacs is not modal.  It would not be very emacs-like to do
> M-x xml-insert/document RET and to be prompted for half a hour to
> insert a whole document.  Instead, you could do something like
> customize-variable.   Try for example M-x customize-variable RET
> lisp-source-modes RET Most of the buffer is read-only, and there are
> left some area you can edit.  There are some buttons, to insert or
> remove repeatitive areas.  You could have a look at the sources of
> customize-variable to see how it's done and implement your structural
> editor like this.

I just thought I would endose msf-abbrev-mode here.

Thank you

Timothy Hobbs