[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: functions which read by prompting should not add additional chars to
RE: functions which read by prompting should not add additional chars to prompt string
Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:06:03 -0800
> Lisp functions which read user input and accept a PROMPT arg should
> not append additional characters to the supplied PROMPT string
> esp. when no additional arguments are supplied.
Not sure we need an explicit rule to handle the problems you point to. But I
also don't have any special use case for such a function tacking on extra chars,
and I agree about the principle as well as the cases that need to be fixed.
It would be one thing to express such a rule wrt Emacs's own sources (makes
sense); it would be another thing to proclaim it wider (e.g. as a convention,
say, in the doc).
I would say let's just take care of the concrete problems you point to, and then
adhere to the same approach generally (in Emacs sources), without promulgating
another rule to users.
> (if default-value
> (format "%s (default %s): " prompt
> (query-replace-descr default-value))
> (format "%s: " prompt))
> This should be:
> (format "%s" prompt)
IMO there is no need to add the default value, whatever it might be, to the
prompt string. As always, it is available via `M-n'. There's nothing special
about `read-regexp' (or the other functions mentioned below) in this regard.
However, this function is weird wrt the default value. DEFAULT-VALUE is not
included in the list of defaults passed to `read-from-minibuffer', so it is not
even accessible using `M-n'. It is accessible _only_ by hitting RET with empty
input. Why the weird design here?
If there is no good reason for it then let's get rid of this confusing
exception. Just put DEFAULT-VALUE at the head of the defaults list, and let it
go at that.
[Another point about `read-regexp': It is a completely general function, and as
such should be moved out of `replace.el'. There is already enough stuff in that
file that is not specific to replacement (e.g. `occur'). Presumably it is there
only out of laziness: someone added it for use in `replace.el' code, and it was
never moved to a better home.]
> Each of the above rely on the value of (car regexp-history) for
> DEFAULT-VALUE. IOW, even where callers do supply DEFAULT-VALUE there
> is no guarantee that the car of `regexp-history' isn't null.
Null (car regexp-history) is not a problem, that I can see.
> A good fix might be to adjust the existing semantics of `read-regexp's
> DEFAULT-VALUE to accept a boolean which when t defaults to whatever is
> at the head `regexp-history' e.g.:
> (and (eq default-value t) (setq default-value (car regexp-history)))
Not a good idea, IMO. No gain, and some loss of clarity (more doc lookup, for
`read-regexp' puts a bunch of defaults ahead of the history, for `M-n'. If a
caller wants to privilege (car regexp-history), then it's better for everyone if
that is explicit in the call. We gain nothing by identifying an apparently
common case ((car regexp-history)) and adding a layer of source
indirection/obfuscation by having `t' stand for it.
> Following two functions, `read-face-name' and `read-quoted-char' both
> step on the supplied PROMPT and should be fixed:
> (read-face-name "face ")
> (read-quoted-char "char ")
1+. Let the caller supply the prompt, including any `: '. Always. Unless
there is some special countervailing reason.
And let users get the default values with `M-n' - forget about adding defaults
to prompts (that's not done consistently anyway).
> `read-buffer' may step on the PROMPT string only when DEF is non-nil:
> (read-buffer "buffer ")
1+. Oddly, here the C source apparently tries to compensate for the presence or
absence of a space and a colon in the supplied PROMPT. These all produce the
(read-buffer "foo:" "toto")
(read-buffer "foo: " "toto")
(read-buffer "foo " "toto")
(read-buffer "foo" "toto")
The code should not be so "clever". Again, let the caller be responsible for
the prompt. Likewise for `read-buffer-to-switch' (which just calls
In sum, I agree with you: 1+.
All such attempts at "clever prompting" or easing the caller's burden (just some
guesses at the motivations) are misguided. Keep it simple.