GNU bug report logs - #49265
28.0.50; repeat mode feature request

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Ergus <spacibba <at> aol.com>

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 22:15:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: fixed

Fixed in version 28.0.50

Done: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "49265 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <49265 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, Ergus <spacibba <at> aol.com>, Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Subject: bug#49265: [External] : bug#49265: 28.0.50; repeat mode feature request
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:53:28 +0000
>     Drew> The text is ambiguous.  If that's what you mean,
>     Drew> please reword it.  For example, this unambiguously
>     Drew> applies "repeatable" only to "commands":
> 
>     Drew>   Describe keymaps and repeatable commands.
> 
>     Drew> But is "describe keymaps" appropriate?  Or are the
>     Drew> keymaps that are described here only certain ones?
> 
> It only describes keymaps that have bindings to
> repeatable commands in them.

Yes, that's what I understood.  So the proposed doc
misleads.  (And it doesn't describe all such keymaps,
because it doesn't consider all repeatable commands -
see next.)

> I still think we should not mention keymaps at all, only bindings.

I agree.

And as I mentioned earlier, it should be made clear
in the doc that "repeatable" here means only commands
defined using `repeat.el'.

There are other ways to define repeatable commands,
and those commands aren't represented by this
describe feature.

(It's not even clear to me that this feature really
helps users.  A naming convention (combined with
`commandp', of course) makes more sense to me.)




This bug report was last modified 3 years and 184 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.