[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound..
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.. |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:31:20 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:53:28PM +0200, Per Abrahamsen wrote:
> >> I think such a seperation between Lisp and Customize will be both
> >> simpler and more robust, as the two will never interfere with each
> >> other.
> >
> > It sounds more confusing for the user to have two variables which are `the
> > same but different' like that.
>
> The user will only see one of them, in this case either "global-map"
> if he is a Lisp user, or "Global Key Bindings" if he is a Customize
> user.
There really isn't such a clean separation between `Lisp users' and
`Customize users'. A few people only see the customize interface, but most
will see both variables (since they are both really just variables).
The `Lisp world' is a superset of the customize one.
In the rest of your message you seem to really _wish_ there was such a
separation, but there just isn't, and I don't think we can make one either,
without completely changing emacs (and I don't want to change emacs, I think
it's basically fine, despite some rough edges).
Since there isn't such a separation, pretending there is just confuses
people.
> That is a good idea if we believe that the difference between
> the customization needs of a programmer and a non-programmer is merely
> a matter of syntactic sugar.
You have to work within the reality of emacs, and in emacs, users can see all
variables. That doesn't make them `programmers'.
> > I think Stefan's exactly right that the _right_ thing to do is something
> > roughly equivalent to `defcustom global-map'.
>
> Something like
> (defkeymap my-mode-map ...)
> generating all three for major and minor modes.
Well, I'd say a macro like that might be a good idea, but it shouldn't
`generate all three', it should just Do The Right Thing for _one_ keymap.
-Miles
--
P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false,
for reasons of military security.
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., (continued)
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Richard Stallman, 2002/09/01
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Per Abrahamsen, 2002/09/01
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Per Abrahamsen, 2002/09/01
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Stefan Monnier, 2002/09/02
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Kai Großjohann, 2002/09/02
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Stefan Monnier, 2002/09/02
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Per Abrahamsen, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Miles Bader, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Per Abrahamsen, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Stefan Monnier, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound..,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Andreas Schwab, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Miles Bader, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Miles Bader, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Robert J. Chassell, 2002/09/04
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Alex Schroeder, 2002/09/04
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Robert J. Chassell, 2002/09/03
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Per Abrahamsen, 2002/09/04
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Robert J. Chassell, 2002/09/04
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Alex Schroeder, 2002/09/04
- Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.., Robert J. Chassell, 2002/09/05