[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp
From: |
Howard Melman |
Subject: |
Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 11:52:12 -0400 |
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> My sense is that the proposed C-x & is a prefix, because it
>>> is used before another key sequence. It is not an argument
>>> because it doesn't affect the functions' argument list the
>>> way C-u does.
>>> Maybe the term should be "prefix sequence"?
>
>> I like this proposal. "Prefix key sequence" would be more precise, but
>> it doesn't read fluid. If there isn't any objection over the next week,
>> I'll apply your wording.
>
> Please don't.
>
> This is _not_ a prefix key. A key is a key sequence. A prefix key is a key
> sequence that is a prefix of a larger key sequence. But in Emacs a prefix key
> also has the specific meaning of a key sequence that is bound to a keymap.
> `C-x &' is not bound to a keymap, and is thus not a prefix key (sequence).
>
> Until and unless we really do decide to baptize this and document it, please
> just what RMS suggested: don't call it anything. Certainly please do not call
> it just a "prefix" or a "prefix key (sequence)".
Having reread the Keys section of the Emacs manual I see your objection. Since
"key" is short for "key sequence", then indeed it's not a "prefix key
(sequence)" or a "(prefix key) sequence". My intention was to read it as
"prefix (key sequence)", as something that comes before a key sequence, though
clearly the ambiguity is an issue.
> What is it a prefix of? A prefix is part of what it is a prefix of.
It's a prefix of a key sequence, and it is a key sequence itself ("a sequence
of one or more input events is is meaningful as a unit"). It's kind of a
"complete key" ("a key sequence [that] invokes a command"), though it's a
"complete key" that needs more. Maybe it's a "semi-complete key" as something
between the existing terms "complete key" and "prefix key" and the full
sequence C-x & C-x C-f is still a complete key sequence.
As you pointed out, technically C-u isn't a prefix key because it calls the
command universal-argument, maybe it also is a semi-complete key. (Though
clearly it would always be more useful to describe C-u as beginning a prefix
argument).
>>> Wasn't there are a proposal at one point to do something
>>> similar for C-x 4 and C-x 5 so that there didn't have to be
>>> -other-window and -other-frame variants of so many
>>> commands?
>>
>> I'm not aware of such a proposal (which only means that my memory is
>> bad), but it makes sense.
>
> I believe he's thinking of Stefan's wish to have prefix keys `C-x 4' and `C-x
> 5' work automatically, without defining separate other-window and other-frame
> commands. That's something completely different. Let's please not let this
> thread wander farther than it already has.
Yes, that's what I was thinking of. I'm not sure if there was a proposed
implementation or if it was similar to this one, but the usage struck me as
similar. Since this is a proposal to name a new kind of thing, it didn't feel
like wandering to to test it against other similar kinds of proposals to see if
it would cover them as well.
Howard
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, (continued)
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/05
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Howard Melman, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Werner LEMBERG, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Michael Albinus, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2018/08/06
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/06
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp,
Howard Melman <=
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Stefan Monnier, 2018/08/06
Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Dmitry Gutov, 2018/08/08