[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Overalays and point-entered

From: Nathaniel Flath
Subject: Re: Overalays and point-entered
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:03:36 -0400

This may be a good solution.  What are your thoughts, Stefan?


On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> Now, what the behavior should be upon C-x o or C-x b is again somewhat
> unclear: for C-x b, actually I think it's pretty clear that it should
> run the hook (which is a vote in favor of per-window data), but for "C-x
> o" it's less clear: running the hook would often be a good idea, but
> would mean that it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to let
> the user go to the *Completions* buffer to select an entry with
> choose-completion.

It seems like it would be easier to handle the subtle variations among a
variety of cases if there were simply hooks for each type of movement --
one which is per-buffer, and only cares about point position, one which
runs when a window becomes selected/deselected (C-x o case), and one
which runs when a buffer is attached/detached from a window (C-x b case).

Then the programmer could add hooks to handle which things he cared
about, without having them be inadvertently triggered in cases he
doesn't care about.


"Though they may have different meanings, the cries of 'Yeeeee-haw!' and
 'Allahu akbar!' are, in spirit, not actually all that different."

reply via email to

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