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

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     > If you need to condition some of these maps on some symbol's being
>     > false, then we could make the minimal extension so far proposed, which
>     > is to allow minor-mode-map-alist (or another new alist) to have
>     > conditions which are more complex than just a symbol.  But you do see
>     > if you can easily get away without that.
> 
>     If we don't allow some form of simple logical expression [e.g. the
>     functions I listed in a previous mail],
> 
> What are the three conditions that you want to test for?
> Let's see what features they require.
> 

Here are the keymap conditionals used by cua:
 
  (and mark-active
       cua-enable-cua-keys
       (or (eq cua-enable-cua-keys t)
           (not cua--explicit-region-start))
       (not executing-kbd-macro)
       (not cua--prefix-override-timer))

  (and mark-active
       (timerp cua--prefix-override-timer))

  (or (eq cua-enable-cua-keys t)
      cua--last-region-shifted)

  (and cua--global-mark-active
       (not (window-minibuffer-p)))


The last one calls `windows-minibuffer-p' -- that's probably
not considered as `trivial' ?

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