[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: delete-selection-mode
From: |
Lennart Borgman |
Subject: |
Re: delete-selection-mode |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:20:00 +0100 |
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> See what Kim, Juri, and others said, to understand why it can be important to
> support symbol properties in addition to coding the behavior in the command's
> `interactive' spec.
>
> As Richard put it: "I think we should support both ways, but prefer the
> interactive spec". IOW, (a) `interactive' spec and (b) function symbol
> properties.
>
> (a) is good for specifying the default behavior of a command: it gives the
> command's own, a priori view of its intended behavior. (b) is good for
> specifying alternative, additional, or otherwise custom behavior for the
> command, as determined by the particular runtime context.
I agree to this (as I have already said somewhere in this thread).
- Re: delete-selection-mode, (continued)
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/23
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Lennart Borgman, 2010/03/23
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/23
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Chong Yidong, 2010/03/25
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/25
- RE: delete-selection-mode, Drew Adams, 2010/03/26
- Re: delete-selection-mode,
Lennart Borgman <=
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Richard Stallman, 2010/03/25
- Re: delete-selection-mode, joakim, 2010/03/26
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Teemu Likonen, 2010/03/26
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Juri Linkov, 2010/03/23
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Lennart Borgman, 2010/03/23
- RE: delete-selection-mode, Drew Adams, 2010/03/23
- Re: delete-selection-mode, David Kastrup, 2010/03/22
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Miles Bader, 2010/03/22
- Re: delete-selection-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/22
- RE: delete-selection-mode, Drew Adams, 2010/03/22