[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: position on changing defaults?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: position on changing defaults? |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:39 -0400 |
The argument against using pre-command-hook and post-command-hook is
efficiency
That is one argument, but I posted other arguments.
Also note that the de-shifting mechanism is more efficient because it
would only run for shift keys, whereas pre-command-hook and
post-command-hook run for every command.
However, I don't like the de-shifting approach because that imposes a
meaning on all shift commands that cannot be overridden by rebinding
them. I don't think we should do that, regardless of the precise
mechanism.
- Re: position on changing defaults?, (continued)
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/08
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/08
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Stefan Monnier, 2008/03/08
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/09
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Stefan Monnier, 2008/03/09
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/09
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/09
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/11
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/11
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/11
- Re: position on changing defaults?,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/06
Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/05
Re: position on changing defaults?, Stefan Monnier, 2008/03/06
Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/08
Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/08
Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/09
Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/09