Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for your indication.
> (...) In general, I don't think there's a better way. I would argue > that if you need to use such an ugly hack, you should only be > morally allowed to do that after sending a patch that will make it > unnecessary in the future. You're true. I am working on `dired-do-shell-command' and alike commands (defined in Dired and Dired-X): I'd like them to be completion compliant via the useful library Shell Command from Masatoshi Tsuchiya. The doc spec of `dired-read-shell-command' says `This is an extra function so that you can redefine it, e.g., to use gmhist.' Dired-X do this: it redefines the command using `defun'. I feel like it's very ugly... But my knowledge in elisp is somewhat limited: I am not an esthète! So, I question now: Do you recommend that my patch change this (one could use a variable containing the name of a function...)? -- Matthias _______________________________________________ Help-gnu-emacs mailing list Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs