emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Smarter M-x that filters on major-mode


From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Smarter M-x that filters on major-mode
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:03:53 +0000

Hello, Lars.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 15:23:31 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie> writes:

> > I'm curious, though: if (interactive ARG MODES...) is neither forward
> > nor backward compatible,

> I'm not sure what you mean by "forward compatible" here...  Emacs 29
> should be able to use it just fine?

> > and is equivalent to (declare (modes MODES...)), then why not allow
> > only the latter syntax?  Or am I missing something?

> Since approx. 97% of commands will eventually have this markup, that
> means that 97% of commands will start with

>   (declare (modes foo-mode))
>   (interactive "p")

> and that seems like too much line noise.  We don't have to make Emacs
> Lisp into Java.

Please stop.  Please just stop and rethink.

Filtering out stuff from an M-x search is a minor feature.  You're
proposing turning the structures of Emacs upside down in implementing
it.  This is disproportionate, and will bring unforeseen problems with
it.

`interactive' currently does one thing and does it well - it says how to
call a function interactively.  You're advocating adding unrelated stuff
into `interactive'.  That is ugly, horribly ugly.

You're proposing making the .elc format backward incompatible, all for
what?  For some minor feature to do with M-x.  A feature which not
everybody wants (I certainly don't), and not everybody will use.

You're proposing encouraging (or even "encouraging") people to make
their libraries backward incompatible, something which will meet
considerable resistance.  (Dmitry, I think, has already expressed an
unwillingness to make such changes to his packages.)

Also the DEFUN macro will need modifying.  This won't be pretty.

Please just leave `interactive' alone.  Please just leave the .elc
format alone.

There are other ways to do what this proposal is proposing (I've
forgotten exactly what this is) - why not just add a property called
`minor-modes' to the functions' symbols?  Or something like that?

> -- 
> (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
>    bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



reply via email to

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