[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: position on changing defaults?
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: position on changing defaults? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:47:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.92 (gnu/linux) |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> I can not see what the advantage with an interactive spec over a
> property on the function name is. Could you please tell?
>
> The interactive spec is where you specify other things about how to
> call the function interactively. So it is a cleaner interface to put
> this in the same place.
What about commands which have a lisp form as interactive spec?
>
> And for the actual implementation of activating/deactivating the mark I
> can not see the advantage of doing it directly in the command loop
> instead of in special hooks before and after pre/post-command-hook.
>
> Using those hooks is unreliable and slow.
That's simply not true!
CUA mode uses them, and it works fast and flawlessly.
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- Re: position on changing defaults?, (continued)
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/14
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Chong Yidong, 2008/03/13