> There are other commands using `a' letter to read function names (like > `elp-instrument-function', etc.) where getting the default function name > from the current buffer would be useful too. So maybe it's better to > implement this in `call-interactively' for all commands using `a'? > > That seems like a good idea.
I have ideas for improving other code letters (for example, using ffap for `f', `F', `D'), but they are much easier implementable in Lisp. > I think that allowing customization at that level is asking for > trouble. Customizating details of how a specific letter `b' works is > not a problem, but letting programs simply redefine these codes is > asking for trouble. What if two different packages both define Q but > define it in different ways? > > It is much better if people keep on handling such cases by writing > Lisp code as they already have. The problem is in changing existing code letters. Emacs allows customization of almost everything down to redefining built-in core functions, but disallows customization of default methods for reading input arguments. This is an artificial restriction contradicting the principles of Emacs customization. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
