Am Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:13:46 -0500 schrieb Jeremy Hankins <[email protected]>:
> Matthew Love <[email protected]> writes: > > > Along these same lines I was thinking we could have a tunable option like > > 'apps-menu-filter > > > > which would have pre-defined filters 'default and 'maybe which would be > > the same as 'nil and 'maybe above, respectively. > > > > There would also be the option to make your own filter if you choose, > > i.e. > > > > (setq user-apps-menu-display-filter '( > > ('no-games ;; filter-name > > (var0 "Categories" "[Gg]ame") ;; (variable-name fdo-key regexp > > &optional t) -- the optional 't will filter out the record if the > > test is false, rather than the default of filtering out a record > > if the test it true. > > (var2 "NoDisplay" "[Tt]") > > (var3 "Hidden" "[Tt]")) > > ('xfce > > (var4 "OnlyShowIn" "xfce" t) > > (var5 "NoDisplay" "[Tt]") > > (var6 "Hidden" "[Tt]")))) > > Another way would be to be able to specify a predicate function to do > the filtering. The function would be passed a record and would return > true or false to indicate whether or not to include it in the menu. You > could define a couple of standard functions (which would be able to be > called from within user-provided functions) to do common things (e.g., > to do the sort of filtering that t or nil would do). That way the > apps-menu-display-all would be simple to use for novices (it could still > take options like t and nil) but if its value is a function (or even a > lisp form?) instead of t or nil that would be the predicate used. If > you wanted, you could even get a bit fancier, and allow the function to > modify the record (i.e., the function would return the record, possibly > modified, or nil indicating not to include it). That way a power user > could, e.g., rename certain entries or maybe even categories easily. > > Just an idea; I don't know how easy it would be to work this into your > current system. > I guess it would be easier, yes. Also some docs would be nice in general. Chris
