Re: [GNU ELPA] New package: caffeinate-mode

Philip Kaludercic <[email protected]> writes:

> Yes, you are right this wouldn't be a good idea for the minor mode
> itself.  What might also be worthwhile investigating is if you just want
> the "display" minor mode to modify if you want to inhibit the display
> from going to sleep, and nothing else?  So you can both enable or
> disable it interactively, or set it persistently in your configuration,
> but you remain to have only a single entry point to the core
> functionality.  The fact that the two minor modes have almost identical
> definitions seems to point to this being a viable possibility to me.
> To preserve the current behavior you'd just have to provide a
> dynamically computed lighter.

Suppose we have a single minor mode caffeinate-mode, with a sub-mode
that toggles whether the power assertion also prevents display sleep
(system sleep is always prevented).

The sub-mode would be driven by a variable,
caffeinate-inhibit-display-sleep. The user could customize this to set
their default preference, but if you use both with some regularity, you
probably don't want to go through the customize interface every time, so
I assume we would also offer a command, say,
caffeinate-toggle-inhibit-display-sleep to flip it. I assume the value
of the variable would persist across caffeinate-mode being enabled and
disabled.

The main challenge here is that I as a user have to remember what
setting the mode was last in. E.g. if I last used caffeinate with
display sleep blocking, but now I just want system sleep blocking, I
would need to run M-x caffeinate-mode followed by M-x
caffeinate-toggle-inhibit-display-sleep. Whereas with the separate minor
modes, I just call the one I want. Perhaps that's not that big of a deal
though--if someone really feels strongly they can add a few trivial
functions to their init to turn on caffeinate to the preference value
that they want.

> Or do you expect users to use both minor modes equally likely?

I think most would not use the modes equally likely, but I imagine the
split being closer to 60/40 than 90/10.

-- 
Lucas Christian
[email protected]