Re: Enhancements to "minor-mode-map-alist" functionality.

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     I still think that addition of the emulation-mode-map-alist does not
>     add to the complexity of emacs' keymap functionality [I've already
>     written the code, and it is trivial] -- it actually makes it simpler
>     for packages to setup their own keymaps.
> 
> Would you please show me concretely where this is needed?
> 
>     I don't have any _new_ arguments in favour of this view -- but I really,
>     really, really feel strongly that the current features are inadequate.
> 
> That's not the question.  We're discussing whether to add a single
> alist or a list of alists.

Ok, then my strong _opinion_ is that we should make the proper solution:
a list of alists.  It is the same level of complexity - and a lot more
flexible.

> 
>     If you enable both cua and viper, they both have a post-command-hook
>     function which reorders the minor-mode-map-alist to meet their own 
>     requirements... so in effect you get the minor-mode-map-alist shuffled
>     and reshuffled twice after each command.
> 
> How does thie relate to the present question (whether to add one alist
> or many)?  I do not see the connection.

Giving each package the ability to maintain individual alists means that they
don't need any extra code to ensure that no other packages have messed it up.

Adding one extra list doesn't solve this problem.