[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: Enhancements to "minor-mode-map-alist" functionality.
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 20:12:14 -0400

> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> >     > That may be true, but I'd like to see what the issue is more 
> > concretely.
> >     > If cua and viper tried to use one alist, what would they have to do
> >     > to prevent it from being messed up?  What does "messed up" mean in 
> > this
> >     > context?
> > 
> >     Changing the sequence or removing an element from the alist.
> > 
> > I don't understand--could you be less cryptic?
> > That does not seem to answer either one of my questions.
> > It is not the right kind of answer for either one.
> You asked in what way the alist could be "messed up" in "this context".
> The "messing up" I'm concerned about is if some other mode
> (accidentally) changes the sequence of the elements in the alist, or
> (accidentally) removes one or more of the elements.

The issue of ordering seems academic since I still haven't heard
of any piece of code that accidentally changes the ordering of entries
on minor-mode-map-alist.  Similarly I haven't heard of any case
where an entry is accidentally removed (this would simply be a bug).

I thought the only real problem was that you needed your maps to be
at the head of minor-mode-map-alist to take precedence over all others.
(this applies both to cua and viper).
This is a problem because minor modes (almost) always add themselves
at the head of the list.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]