emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: 29.0.60; keymap-local-set and keymap-global-set became less strict


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: 29.0.60; keymap-local-set and keymap-global-set became less strict
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 20:43:09 +0200

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
> Cc: larsi@gnus.org,  mail@daniel-mendler.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,
>   monnier@iro.umontreal.ca
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:48:27 +0100
> 
> >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:37:35 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> said:
> 
>     >> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
>     >> Cc: larsi@gnus.org,  mail@daniel-mendler.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,
>     >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca
>     >> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:48:02 +0100
>     >> 
>     >> >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:06:21 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> 
> said:
>     >> 
>     Eli> Why does it have to be so complicated, though?  If the problem is not
>     Eli> to call key-description in non-interactive invocations, can't we call
>     Eli> key-description inside the interactive form?  Or use some other trick
>     Eli> to invoke key-description only in interactive calls?
>     >> 
>     >> ? Weʼre only calling key-description inside `interactive' in the
>     >> patch.
> 
>     Eli> I meant _before_ the patch.  The only problem with that code was that
>     Eli> it called key-description fro non-interactive invocations.  Can't we
>     Eli> handle just that minor issue, and leave the rest intact?  If not, why
>     Eli> not?
> 
> Sure, if you tell me how to reliably determine
> that. `called-interactively-p' comes with all sorts of dire warnings.

What's wrong with the first method described in the node "Distinguish
Interactive" in the ELisp reference?



reply via email to

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