[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defadvice use
From: |
Matthias |
Subject: |
Re: Defadvice use |
Date: |
18 Apr 2005 23:07:33 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
Thanks for your indication.
> (...) In general, I don't think there's a better way. I would argue
> that if you need to use such an ugly hack, you should only be
> morally allowed to do that after sending a patch that will make it
> unnecessary in the future.
You're true.
I am working on `dired-do-shell-command' and alike
commands (defined in Dired and Dired-X): I'd like them to be
completion compliant via the useful library Shell Command from
Masatoshi Tsuchiya.
The doc spec of `dired-read-shell-command' says `This is an extra
function so that you can redefine it, e.g., to use gmhist.' Dired-X do
this: it redefines the command using `defun'. I feel like it's very
ugly... But my knowledge in elisp is somewhat limited: I am not an
esthète!
So, I question now: Do you recommend that my patch change this (one
could use a variable containing the name of a function...)?
--
Matthias
- Re: Mis-features of let, (continued)
- Re: Mis-features of let, rgb, 2005/04/19
- Re: Mis-features of let, Kevin Rodgers, 2005/04/19
- Re: Mis-features of let, David Kastrup, 2005/04/19
- Re: Mis-features of let, rgb, 2005/04/19
- Re: Mis-features of let, David Kastrup, 2005/04/20
- Re: Mis-features of let, Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/20
- Re: Mis-features of let, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/04/20
- Re: Mis-features of let, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/04/19
- Re: Defadvice use, Barry Margolin, 2005/04/19
Re: Defadvice use, Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/18
- Re: Defadvice use,
Matthias <=
Re: Defadvice use, Kevin Rodgers, 2005/04/18