[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: last-command-other-than-handle-switch-frame?

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: last-command-other-than-handle-switch-frame?
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:41:28 -0800

>     I use non-nil pop-up-frames, so lots of `handle-switch-frame'
>     commands get executed behind the scene. Why that is needed I've
>     never quite understood - why should a focus event be treated as
>     a "command"?
> The reason to make it generate an event is to make the command loop
> check for the new frame's buffer's keymaps.
> What does "treated as a command" mean?

Set `last-command' to it.

Again, if that is unavoidable, then how about also having a
`last-user-command' variable, which gets only user commands, not
pseudo-commands such as `handle-switch-frame'.

>     For some time now, I've been coding ugly hacks like this:
>      (if (memq last-command '(foo handle-switch-frame))...
> Does "treated as a command" mean that it goes into last-command?

Yes. That is what the annoyance is.

> I don't see any specific reason for doing so.
> Maybe we should change that.

That would be great.

> We cannot handle them thru special-event-map because they they would
> not cause the command loop to recheck the keymaps.  But we could give
> it a definition that sets this-command to last-command, or something
> else with similar effect.

I would appreciate such a fix.

reply via email to

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