[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Should compare-windows do (ding t)
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Should compare-windows do (ding t) |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:00:58 -0400 |
What do people think about this question?
To: "Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden>
Started-at: 2006.08.04-15:45:50
From: Whitfield Diffie <address@hidden>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:56:58 -0700
Subject: Ding in compare windows
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=failed
version=3.0.4
Friday 04 August 2006 at 15:45
> I will implement the use of two different skip functions. Using (ding t)
> is a separate question; that might be an improvement but I am not quite
> sure what is right here.
I don't know the reason for wanting to have a compare windows failure
--- it isn't even exactly a failure it is just that the windows differ
immediately and usually results from not moving the cursor in one window
or the other before calling compare windows again --- but perhaps there is
one I haven't thought of. The reason I find it awkward is that I find
myself defining keyboard macros that compare windows and two things are
annoying.
Consider the following not very inspired macro:
(define-kbd-macro 'compare-then-recenter ;; name
"xcompa
oo" ;; code
"xcompa<ctrl-M><ctrl-L><ctrl-X>o<ctrl-L><ctrl-X>o" ;; readable code
" Compare-windows then recenter each.") ;; comment
if a ding exists from the macro during compare-windows, the
recentering doesn't get done. I believe I have had more interesting
cases but I can't recall them.
I often use compare-windows (in a macro) when debug-on-error is true.
In this case, the ding pops us an error window. I suppose this is
something that could be handled with debug-ignored-errors but it doesn't
seem that it is really an error, so why whould we want it exciting the
error handler.
Using (ding t) solves both problems.
Whit
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Should compare-windows do (ding t),
Richard Stallman <=