|
From: | Lennart Borgman (gmail) |
Subject: | Re: Shift selection using interactive spec |
Date: | Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:21:37 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
Thomas Lord wrote:
Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:I translate it to something like this in elisp code: ;;;; pre-pre ...There's no need for a pre-pre hook or for a test of whether the last sequence was shifted. You're using the "three variables" correctly, but there are simpler ways to use them to achieve the same effect.
Yes, I use pre-pre just as a name for a position in the command loop. It could be a hook, but need of course not be implemented that way.
Sorry for writing the code a bit un-lispish ;-)
;;;; post-post ;; (if buffer-was-changed (setq preserved-tm nil) (unless preserved-tm (when user-wants-it (setq preserved-tm maybe-preserved-tm)))) (setq tm preserved-tm)No. "buffer-was-changed" has nothing to do with anything here. Sorry.
Thanks for the clarification.
Nor is there any need for a "post-post" hook. The command loop can simply, unconditionally, copy tentative-mark to maybe-preserved-... before running a command, and preserved-... to tentative-mark before returning control to the user -- two unconditional "setq"s in the loop. None of this "buffer-was-changed" stuff. Those distinctions happen elsewhere in this scheme, and on a different basis. -t -t
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |