[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:12:01 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> Maybe "enable evil-esc-mode in post-command-hook and disable it in
>> pre-command-hook" might work?
> I'm a little bit afraid of situations where a new binding is defined
> but pre-command-hook has not been called (to restore the original
> definition of `input-decode-map`). For example if a new binding is
> established in a hook or when Emacs starts. If evil is loaded before
> that binding is defined, i.e. input-decode-map is already 'patched',
> then it may fail. Of course one could start with an unpatched
> input-decode-map and wait for the first post-command-hook.
Agreed, using post/pre-command-hook is messy. Other problems come up
with recursive edits (and minibuffers), where the pre-command-hook can
end up run twice without intervening post-command-hook and
post-command-hook can similarly be run twice without an intervening
pre-command-hook.
> So the question is: is it guaranteed that a post-command-hook will be
> called when Emacs starts and before any user input, and that a call to
> `define-key` will always be preceded by a pre-command-hook and
> followed by a post-command-hook, no matter how it is called?
No, basically with pre/post-command-hook, nothing is guaranteed.
> This includes any possibility to call `define-key` from a hook or
> so. I just do not have the overview to give a reliable judgement on
> this. IMO using an advice is more direct and simpler in this
> particular situation, although I really don't like it.
I think what we really care about is to detect "called from
read-key-sequence". How 'bout:
(defvar evil-normal-esc-map (lookup-key input-decode-map [?\e]))
(define-key input-decode-map
[?\e] `(menu-item "" ,evil-normal-esc-map
:filter ,(λ (map)
(if (and (not evil-inhibit-escape)
(equal (this-single-command-keys) [?\e])
(sit-for 0.1))
[escape] map))))
So the special ESC=>escape mapping only takes place if the whole
last key-sequence so far is just [?\e], i.e. either we're still in
read-key-sequence, or the last read-key-sequence only read [?\e], which
should ideally never happen because it should have been mapped to [escape].
Stefan
- bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Frank Fischer, 2013/02/23
- bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Stefan Monnier, 2013/02/24
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Frank Fischer, 2013/02/25
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Stefan Monnier, 2013/02/25
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Frank Fischer, 2013/02/26
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Stefan Monnier, 2013/02/26
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Frank Fischer, 2013/02/26
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X,
Stefan Monnier <=
- bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Frank Fischer, 2013/02/26
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Frank Fischer, 2013/02/27
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Stefan Monnier, 2013/02/27
- Message not available
- bug#13709: bug#13793: 24.3.50; M-x broken in viper and X, Michael Kifer, 2013/02/26