GNU bug report logs - #52839
29.0.50; The '(declare (modes MODE...))' NEWS entry is confusing

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#52839: closed (29.0.50; The '(declare (modes MODE...))' NEWS
 entry is confusing)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 14:46:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:45:17 +0200
with message-id <83r19vjwqq.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#52839: 29.0.50; The '(declare (modes MODE...))' NEWS entry is confusing
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #52839,
regarding 29.0.50; The '(declare (modes MODE...))' NEWS entry is confusing
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
52839: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=52839
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 29.0.50; The '(declare (modes MODE...))' NEWS entry is confusing
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 03:49:33 +0200

It says these syntaxes "declare how completion should happen" or one of
them "can be used as a general predicate to say whether the command
should be present when completing with 'M-x TAB'", but neither have any
effect unless the user customizes read-extended-command-predicate.

The previous entry (the one about (interactive "p" dired-mode)) doesn't
mention the predicate user option either.

Should read-extended-command-predicate be set to
#'command-completion-default-include-p by default? Otherwise the NEWS
entries (at least one of them) should probably mention it.

When reading the manual (subsection "Specifying Modes For Commands"),
I'm feeling a similar problem.
command-completion-default-include-p *is* mentioned, but only somewhere
in the middle. The intro gives the impression that "specifying modes"
will have an effect by default.

The small two paragraphs saying

  Specifying modes _may_ affect completion in @kbd{M-x}

  ...when using the ... predicate ...

look kind of sneaky. Like, we have just described a way to set up a
bunch of meaningful information, and that _may_ affect your Emacs's
behavior if (...). That's weird, but I'm not sure how to resolve that
best. Apart from changing the default value, that is.

Other options may be:

  * Change the 'M-x' binding to call execute-extended-command-for-buffer
  instead. The behavior of execute-extended-command won't change, but
  that probably isn't going to save anybody: the user who set up the
  binding to call that command explicitly is probably rare.

  * Have the subsection be actually about the command
  execute-extended-command-for-buffer. Mention its binding (M-X) and say
  that (interactive nil dired-mode) affects its behavior. Then mention
  that by customizing read-extended-command-predicate the user can have
  'M-x' behaving like that as well. If they like.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 52839-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52839: 29.0.50;
 The '(declare (modes MODE...))' NEWS entry is confusing
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:45:17 +0200

> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 03:49:33 +0200
> 
> It says these syntaxes "declare how completion should happen" or one of
> them "can be used as a general predicate to say whether the command
> should be present when completing with 'M-x TAB'", but neither have any
> effect unless the user customizes read-extended-command-predicate.
> 
> The previous entry (the one about (interactive "p" dired-mode)) doesn't
> mention the predicate user option either.
> 
> Should read-extended-command-predicate be set to
> #'command-completion-default-include-p by default? Otherwise the NEWS
> entries (at least one of them) should probably mention it.

Thanks, I added the caveat to these NEWS entries.

> When reading the manual (subsection "Specifying Modes For Commands"),
> I'm feeling a similar problem.
> command-completion-default-include-p *is* mentioned, but only somewhere
> in the middle.

That's a 75-line node, so "in the middle" is also "close to the
beginning".  In fact, it mentions it immediately after explaining the
issue and saying that Emacs has a mechanism for tagging commands as
being specific to modes.  I don't see how this could be moved earlier
without severely disrupting the text didactically.

> The intro gives the impression that "specifying modes" will have an
> effect by default.

I don't think so, but I now tried to make it even more evident.

>    * Change the 'M-x' binding to call execute-extended-command-for-buffer
>    instead. The behavior of execute-extended-command won't change, but
>    that probably isn't going to save anybody: the user who set up the
>    binding to call that command explicitly is probably rare.
> 
>    * Have the subsection be actually about the command
>    execute-extended-command-for-buffer. Mention its binding (M-X) and say
>    that (interactive nil dired-mode) affects its behavior. Then mention
>    that by customizing read-extended-command-predicate the user can have
>    'M-x' behaving like that as well. If they like.

I've added the reference to execute-extended-command-for-buffer and
its binding.

Previous Next

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