[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix |
Date: |
Wed, 15 May 2024 09:46:52 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/30.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
>>> +(defvar other-project-prefix-transient-commands
>>> '(project-other-window-command
>>> +
>>> project-other-frame-command
>>> + project-other-tab-command
>>> + other-window-prefix
>>> + other-frame-prefix
>>> + other-tab-prefix)
>>> + "List of commands that `other-project-prefix' does not apply to.
>> This doesn't yet support such things as 'C-x 5 p p'?
>
> I'm not sure that other-project-prefix can do that.
>
> How does other-frame-prefix work? display-buffer-override-next-command sets
> up hooks in the very familiar fashion, so that the next command (and only
> the next command) is affected by a number of changed variables, which get
> restored after.
>
> I suppose other-project-prefix could learn all the new variables it needs
> to "carry on", look up their values, and set them additionally for the next
> command. But that seems very ad-hoc.
>
> It seems the "proper" way to fix that would be a cross-codebase change
> where all similar "prefix" commands themselves check whether the next
> command is a "prefix" command as well, and if so, keep the variables and
> hooks in place for the command after it. This would also mean moving the
> information from other-project-prefix-transient-commands to symbol
> properties (the alternative I've mentioned previously).
In https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=63648#95
I made an unfinished attempt to handle this by:
```
diff --git a/lisp/window.el b/lisp/window.el
index ab7dd5ced12..52ba407d9c8 100644
--- a/lisp/window.el
+++ b/lisp/window.el
@@ -9099,7 +9091,8 @@ display-buffer-override-next-command
(> (minibuffer-depth) minibuffer-depth)
;; But don't remove immediately after
;; adding the hook by the same command below.
- (eq this-command command))
+ (eq this-command command)
+ (memq this-command '(other-project-prefix)))
(funcall exitfun))))
;; Call post-function after the next command finishes (bug#49057).
(add-hook 'post-command-hook postfun)
```
I'm not sure if this is a proper way, this needs more trial-and-error.
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, (continued)
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/09
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/07
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/08
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/09
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/09
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/10
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/10
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/12
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/14
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/14
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix,
Juri Linkov <=
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/20
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/21
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/21
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/22
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/23
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/05/25
- bug#70577: [PATCH] New command other-project-prefix, Juri Linkov, 2024/05/26