Re: [patch] sawfish.wm.util.prompt

matthew <matth love gmail com> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> On second thought, what about this: give the compiler the do-nothing
>> functions to chew on, but otherwise leave it as-is.
>> It may make sense, apart from the compiler warnings issue, to
>> restructure prompt to behave more modularly.  One advantage would be
>> that you could have different histories for different kinds of prompts.
>> But that's really a separate issue, I think.

> I like this solution for the prompt compiler warnings best.
> It is the least obtrusive for the moment and for the current thing
> we're trying to fix.

Actually, the more I thought about it the more I liked the idea of a
prompt module that explicitly passes helper functions, etc., to prompt,
rather than implicitly passing them via let and defvar.  The
complication involved in calling prompt was one of the major headaches I
had when I first started trying to figure out how to use it for other
things; if it were more explicit it would hopefully be easier for others
to do interesting things with.

So I went ahead and came up with a version that explicitly passes helper
functions, and one benefit is that it solves the compiler warnings
without resorting to eval-when-compile hacks.  I want to think about it
and test it out a bit more, but assuming there are no big glitches I can
send out a patch tomorrow.

Jeremy Hankins <nowan nowan org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]