[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Timing of input-method output

From: Phillip Lord
Subject: Re: Timing of input-method output
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:54:18 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> I've done a bit more work on this and come up with a much simpler
>> solution which is specificially plumbed into quail. It looks like this:
>> modified   lisp/international/quail.el
>> @@ -59,6 +59,10 @@ quail
>>    "Quail: multilingual input method."
>>    :group 'leim)
>> +
>> +(defvar quail-pre-translation-hook nil
>> +  "Normal hook run before quail starts or updates a translation.")
>> +
>>  ;; Buffer local variables
>>  (defvar quail-current-package nil
>> @@ -1548,6 +1552,7 @@ quail-update-translation
>>  `quail-current-key'.  If CONTROL-FLAG is nil, proceed the translation
>>  with more keys."
>>    (let ((func (quail-update-translation-function)))
>> +    (run-hooks 'quail-pre-translation-hook)
>>      (if func
>>      (setq control-flag (funcall func control-flag))
>>        (cond ((numberp control-flag)
> This looks pretty good, but I'd like to better understand why this
> works well.  I.e. how did you end up putting it there rather than elsewhere?

I do not have a terribly principled answer to this; quail is complicated
and has lots of edge cases that I do not understand. If I understand it
correctly, I could equally have put this into quail-self-insert-command;
but here it is right before the bit that the translation actually

>> pre-command-hook is current run by "safe_run_hooks". Does
>> `quail-pre-translation-hook' need to be as well (in which case, it would
>> need uncovering in lisp)? I guess the counter here is that it's possible
>> to get out so long as you don't type certain characters, or you change
>> buffer. But, it leaves emacs fairly unusuable none the less.
> IIUC C-\ should get you out, so I don't think it's necessary to take any
> extra caution here.

Yes, if you know what is causing the problem. But you are correct, it is

>> And, where do you think I should document it? Perhaps "Invoking the
>> Input Method";
> That's probably the best place.

Will extend.


reply via email to

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