[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Interactive hat.

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Interactive hat.
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:29:19 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

Hi again, Lennart!

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:03:08PM +0100, Lennart Borgman wrote:
> Hi Alan,

> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Agreed, except I wouldn't put it in the command loop - I'd put it in a
> > hook (pre-command-hook), for the same reason font-locking is in a hook
> > rather than directly in the command loop.  M-x shift-select would
> > install/remove this function onto/from the hook.

> We discussed this before and my conclusion was that this would not
> work well enough because of the order of things in the hook would be
> crucial. I suggested adding a new hook to run before pre-command-hook.
> (And something similar for pos-command-hook.)

I've searched the archive from a year ago, looking at your posts which
contain the word "hook".  You've certainly asserted that the order of
functions in the pre-command-hook is important, but I don't think you
gave any concrete examples of where an unfortunate ordering would mess
things up.  I think you were thinking of things like Viper Mode, and the
use of commands like `d' (for delete) combined with, say `)' (for end of

In my experience, these feelings of unease are usually justified.  ;-)
All the same, could you possibly construct a realistic example of two
functions in pre-command-hook which work properly in one order, but foul
up in the other?

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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