Re: Native compilation of Keyboard Macros

[Philip Kaludercic]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>>> 1. at level of complex command execution, such as from the history
>>>    retrieved by `repeat-complex-command` (C-x ESC ESC), for example:
>>>
>>>    (rgrep "macro" "* .*" "emacs/lisp/")
>>>
>>> 2. at level of commands corresponding to all typed keys,
>>>    such as retrieved by `view-lossage` (C-h l),
>>>    for example, for the same as above:
>>>
>>>    M-x                ;; execute-extended-command
>>>    r                  ;; self-insert-command
>>>    g                  ;; self-insert-command
>>>    r                  ;; self-insert-command
>>>    <tab>              ;; minibuffer-complete
>>
>> Intuitively I would expect the first level to make more sense, though I
>> see that when considering commands like `self-insert-command' you
>> couldn't just deduce all the command invocations and wrap them in a
>> `progn' body.  At the same time, what is there to compile on the second
>> level?  You still need to look up all the commands and invoke them.  As
>> Stefan said, it is perhaps necessary to either detect what commands can
>> be safely converted into repeat-complex-command'-esque representations
>> (and what commands can be assisted/transformed), and only optimise if
>> that is possible.
>
> Keyboard macros are executed on the keys level, so even the decision
> what complex command to execute might depend on the position of that
> command in the completion list of `M-x', e.g.:
>
>       M-x        ;; execute-extended-command
>       r          ;; self-insert-command
>       <tab>      ;; minibuffer-complete
>       <kp-prior> ;; switch-to-completions
>       <tab>      ;; next-completion
>       <tab>      ;; next-completion
>       <tab>      ;; next-completion
>       <tab>      ;; next-completion
>       <return>   ;; choose-completion

OK, but wouldn't that exclude the possibility of it being compiled,
*unless* there were some way to translate the rest of the input into
something else.