Re: Enhancements to "minor-mode-map-alist" functionality.

[Stefan Monnier]

> "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > > I've described that several times by now -- I'm trying to find the
> > > right approach to address the issues with complex modes which uses a
> > > lot of keymaps (like cua and viper) and base the selection between
> > > those keymaps on combining various state information, i.e. to provide
> > > a more versatile keymap functionality than what is currently
> > > available.
> > 
> > I haven't heard any comment about my proposal to use `menu-item'
> > bindings with a :enable setting in order to get conditional bindings
> > (this doesn't currently work, but it should be pretty easy to make
> > it work).
> > Would it help you solve your problems ?
> 
> Considering that cua has approx 100 bindings in 7 keymaps,
> it seems like absolute overkill IMO to condition each of those
> 100 bindings individually instead of just the 7 keymaps which
> contain those bindings...

Is that 7*100 bindings or 7*14 bindings ?
How much overlap ?
How many different conditions would there be ?
For the sake of describe-key, I think it's better to have fewer bindings
(with the dispatch done more often in the bound function rather
than in the :enable conditionals) so that the docstring can describe what
happens when.


        Stefan