Arthur Miller <arthur.mil...@live.com> writes: > Bruno Barbier <brubar...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Arthur Miller <arthur.mil...@live.com> writes: >> >> The hook `org-capture-mode-hook' will be run in your special >> capture buffer. You can override the "C-c C-c" binding only there. > > Yes and in every other capture buffer
No. If you modify the hook only during your call to 'org-capture', it will be called only once in your buffer. >> Even if I could let bind the function at the right time, I would avoid >> that solution, as I can't garantuee that this global hack will not break >> other parts of Emacs (other captures, output filters, threads, timers, >> etc.). > > Why do you think it will break other parts? This is not a global hack, on > contrary it > exactly tries to prevent to be "global" in entire Emacs, by let-binding a name > to a local lambda, which becomes "global" only in that buffer. If that > explains. You are assigning a local value to the global binding. Everything in Emacs will use your functions until you exit the cl-letf. It's like if you were using 'fset'. Here is an example that uses cl-letf. Note that the call to async-shell-command is outside the "local" binding, yet, the cl-letf breaks it. You should try this in an other Emacs, just in case. (defun oops () (let ((v (async-shell-command "date" "!sh async"))) (cl-letf (((symbol-function 'comint-output-filter) (lambda (proc string) (message "async-shell-command is using my binding: %s" string) (read-string "What's the password?")))) (read-string "what: ") ))) (oops) > > Here is another version on the same theme, where I don't think you could > modify the local > environment without let-binding at all: > > #+begin_src emacs-lisp > (defun my-read-string (prompt) > (let ((delta 20 ) > (minibuffer-mode-map org-mode-map)) > (window-resize (minibuffer-window) delta) > (cl-letf (((symbol-function 'org-ctrl-c-ctrl-c) > (lambda () > (interactive) > (let ((s (buffer-string))) > (exit-minibuffer) s))) > ((symbol-function 'minibuffer-mode) #'org-mode) > ((symbol-function 'minibuffer-complete-and-exit) #'org-return) > ((symbol-function 'org-kill-note-or-show-branches) > #'keyboard-escape-quit)) > (read-string (concat "# Press C-c C-c to continue, C-c C-k to cancel\n# > " prompt "\n\n"))))) > #+end_src I hope I've convinced you to not do that. I definitely will not try it, as Emacs needs a working minibuffer for plenty of things: debugging, saving, quitting, etc. > read-string is written in C and creates its own minibuffer, which is deleted > by > the time read-string exits. I don't know of any other way to cutomize exactly > *that* minibuffer, without installing a hook or advising some functions, > which I > think is way less clean and much more "global" than just running the function > in > a local environment. As I understand, let binding for this purpose is a normal > technique in lisps, but I am not an expert as said; I am actually > experimenting > with this for the purpose of learning and seeing what is possible. Yes, let binding is fundamental. But I think it's the first time I see 'cl-letf' with the 'symbol-function' place. > ... > but I am not sure if I can do anything here without introducing at-least an > extra keymap, to not install into the org-capture-mode-map, so I can as well > create a minor mode, but at this point it is not much different than > re-invinting the read-string, so I'll terminate my experiment here :). You can replace the buffer keymap with a keymap that only contain your custom keys, and inherits everything else from org-capture-mode-map. > > But I wouldn't speak in some generic terms like "use hooks" or "advise" > instead > of let-binding. I didn't mean to say to not use let bindings. I'm trying to say that using 'fset' (i.e. cl-letf + the symbol-function place) looks like a really bad idea to me. And, in this case, hooks and adivces are what is usually used. > (defun org-project-new-project () > (interactive) > (let ((org-capture-templates org-project-templates)) > (org-capture))) > > ... > I don't know what would be the alternative, but let-binding on > org-capture-templates, let me clearly re-use the functionality without > polluting > the global org-capture-templates variable and without re-implementing pretty > much anything. That looks to me like a perfect use of a let binding. You bind a dynamic *variable* using *let*, and, that variable is rebound, and used, during, and only during 'org-capture'. > I am very interested to hear more on the topic, since I would definitely like > to > learn more about different techniques. Variables are designed to be overriden (let bounds). Functions are not (as there is only one binding at any given time). > Hope that explains a bit more on the background of the experiment :). I'm still confused about the idea of making 'read-string' behave like 'org-capture', but, we use Emacs because we can experiment! No need for justification ;-) And, experimenting with the minibuffer, which is one of the fundamental component to control Emacs, that's definitely courageous :-) best, Bruno