[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defining functions on the fly
From: |
Alexis |
Subject: |
Re: Defining functions on the fly |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:01:25 +1000 |
Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org> writes:
But as Pascal already said, duplicating your function is not a
good idea. Defining aliases is a bit better if you persist on
prefixed versions although I the only benefit I can see is a
slightly better discoverability through C-h f <prefix>-TAB.
Related: i created the snippet i pasted from `ewmctrl' so that
when users do C-h m, they can read a helpfully-named function for
a dynamically-generated keybinding, rather than "??".
i imagine there's probably a Better Way To Do It™, though. :-)
Alexis.
- Defining functions on the fly, Andreas Röhler, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Alexis, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Andreas Röhler, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Alexis, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Michael Heerdegen, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Tassilo Horn, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly,
Alexis <=
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Michael Heerdegen, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Tassilo Horn, 2015/06/15
- Re: Defining functions on the fly, Michael Heerdegen, 2015/06/15
Re: Defining functions on the fly, Tassilo Horn, 2015/06/15
Message not available