Re: Current mode command discovery

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Matt Armstrong <matt@rfc20.org> writes:

> To your original queston of "should we build a command like this?" I
> suspect it just needs to be prototyped to see how it feels.
>
> I have many times totally failed to appreciate how useful a thing could
> be *before* I tried it out.

That's true.

> A third possible signal is the command name prefix.

No, heuristics are to be avoided.  There's always too many corner cases
for that to be satisfactory, which approx. three hundred previous
completion frameworks that have tried shows...

> A fourth signal could be a new 'all mode annotation that means
> "generally useful" regardless of mode.

All untagged commands are presumed to be somewhat generally useful, so
that doesn't limit it much.  :-)

> Could the (declare (modes ...)) and the new (interactive ... modes) be
> unified?  I understand that they do different things today, but they're
> both called "modes" and the difference is pretty subtle.  If they stay
> separate, perhaps rename to (declare (completion-modes ...))?

I think I've argued enough against "(declare (modes" as the only tagging
mechanism now?

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