Re: over-engineered (and under-standardized) inferior interfaces

[Stefan Monnier]

> Just some comments on the default bindings. I understand these are the
> historically-available ones, but I do feel that if we create a new mode
> like this, it might be worthwhile to rethink them.

Sure.  prog-proc-mode is really just an experiment, and I'm quite open
to changes, both in terms of UI and implementation.

> With the availability of an "active region", I think it would be nice
> to consolidate send-buffer and send-region to a single binding.

Fine.

> Using a nice binding like C-c C-c for a somewhat less-common command
> like "compile the current file in the REPL" (as opposed to using M-x
> (re)compile) seems like a waste.

FWIW under sml-mode, C-c C-c runs a "make"-like command (but it's
a command passed to the inferior process rather than being a separate
process like in M-x compile).

> So I'd suggest using C-c C-c for a new prog-proc-send-region-or-buffer.

I think "send the current buffer" is not good enough, except for those
rare systems where a single file is all you need.

> I'm also unsure about using up too many C-c C-X bindings in this minor
> mode; the major mode that activates it won't be able to easily override
> those bindings locally, so it might be a good idea to be a bit more
> conservative with the default bindings, providing the commands but not
> the bindings for the less common use cases (load, compile, region,
> buffer).

My memory failed me: if you look at the code, you'll see that
prog-proc-mode is not a minor mode but a major-mode, to be used as
parent mode (in place of prog-mode, from which it derives).
So major modes can very easily override those bindings.
But yes: we shouldn't use too many such bindings.


        Stefan