[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?
From: |
João Távora |
Subject: |
Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode? |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:18:48 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (windows-nt) |
Hi Stefan and Yuri,
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>> I'd like to disable electric-pair-mode in certain buffers.
>> Probably the most important example is the minibuffer.
> [ I'm curious to know more about those isearch and minibuffer cases
> because I haven't bumped into them. Not that it makes any difference
> to the following. ]
I also don't see it. I though that, rightfully so, the syntax in
isearch-mode is tweaked so that parens don't match there.
This is probably the case in most minibuffers (though one still has to
deal with the `electric-pair-pairs' overrider, but not isearch, where
most keys are mapped to `isearch-printing-char' and not
`self-insert'. And this is why they are pair-free.
> (electric-pair-mode 1)
> (setq-default electric-pair-mode nil)
>
> (add-hook 'foo-mode-hook
> (lambda () (setq-local electric-pair-mode t)))
I would do it like this. Though I didn't test much, it looks less hacky
to me:
(electric-pair-mode 1)
(add-hook 'foo-mode-hook
(lambda ()
(setq-local electric-pair-pairs nil)
(setq-local electric-pair-text-pairs nil)
(setq-local electric-pair-inhibit-predicate #'identity)))
So electric-pair-mode is still active (you still get autoskipping if the
syntax determines it), but autopairing is inhibited. Is this still
annoying?
But making electric-pair-local-mode also sounds good to me.
>> When editing regular text, as opposed to code, I also occasionally
>> switch it off because I find it distracting.
> I'm pretty sure that can be done fairly easily, by fixing a few
> concrete cases.
Can you name some?
`electric-pair-pairs' and `electric-pair-text-pairs' which mean "always
always pair these" are the "eager" cases, in my opinion.
At least `electric-pair-pairs' could be made to default to nil, and
probably `electric-pair-text-pairs' too. The snippet above becomes
simpler.
If I recall correctly, `electric-pair-pairs' was kept for backward
compatibility with the original implementation of `electric-pair-mode'
that didn't deduce its behaviour from the mode's syntax.
João
- electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Yuri D'Elia, 2015/03/26
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/03/26
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Yuri D'Elia, 2015/03/27
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?,
João Távora <=
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/03/27
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, João Távora, 2015/03/27
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/03/27
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, João Távora, 2015/03/28
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/03/28
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, João Távora, 2015/03/28
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, João Távora, 2015/03/28
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/03/29
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, João Távora, 2015/03/29
- Re: electric-pair-mode as a minor mode?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/03/29