[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:22:02 -0400 |
Are you sure that that code cannot be made modular enough to be added,
without breaking the basic design and starting over from scratch?
I am absolutely sure that my implementation of multi-command behavior
is much cleaner. Replaceing a standard command is undesirable, so I
would like to minimize the number of commands that we need to replace.
> The only purpose that I know of for defining Icicle-find-file is to
> implement multi-command behavior. Is there any other reason?
No, that is correct - it is the only reason.
That's what I thought. Therefore, my approach to multi-command
behavior will eliminate the need for many of Icicle's substitutes for
standard commands.
So I propose two things to be done in parallel:
* Implement multi-command behavior at the level of Fcall_interactively.
* Make a version of Icicles that doesn't define Icicle-find-file
and the other simple replacements (which are just for the purpose
of the multi-command feature).
#1 is necessary to enable `C-RET', that is, to make it a multi-command at
all. With your implementation of multi-commands, some such variable would
still be necessary in the general case, to override use of the command body
for the action function - that is, to provide a different action from what
the command itself performs when you finally choose a candidate once and for
all.
Can you explain some _specific_ reasons why that is needed?
Becuase it seems to me we can probably do without it.
One use case is defining a command that is itself called when defining
another command. The first command might define a default action function if
`icicle-candidate-action-fn' is nil when it is called. The second command
can bind the action function to override the default in the command it
calls. (There was an example of this, but I no longer have one to point to.)
That is rather abstract and I find I just can't follow it.
2. `icicle-candidate-alternative-action-fn' - an alternative action function
3. `icicle-delete-candidate-object' - a deletion action
The easiest way to handle these is to use properties of the
command symbol, `minibuffer-alt-action', `minibuffer-delete-action'.
So we could do
(put 'find-file 'minibuffer-delete-action 'delete-file)
S-delete would be defined to look for that property on this-command
to decide what to do.
We could implement the equivalent of `icicle-candidate-action-fn'
easily in the same way.
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, (continued)
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/11
- RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Drew Adams, 2007/06/11
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/11
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13
- RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Drew Adams, 2007/06/13
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/14
- RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Drew Adams, 2007/06/14
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs,
Richard Stallman <=
- RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Drew Adams, 2007/06/15
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/16
- RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Drew Adams, 2007/06/16
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Miles Bader, 2007/06/11
- RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Drew Adams, 2007/06/11
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/11
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/11
- RE: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Drew Adams, 2007/06/11
- Re: propose adding Icicles to Emacs, Miles Bader, 2007/06/11