From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#54296: Add buffer-matching functionality Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:47:53 +0300 Message-ID: <83pmjbrsiu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87ee3d4cli.fsf@posteo.net> <87k0d35c82.fsf@gnus.org> <877d92unqn.fsf@posteo.net> <83bkyednvx.fsf@gnu.org> <87cziudmyg.fsf@posteo.net> <838rtheogd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilskbgul.fsf@posteo.net> <83ilskcp9i.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8whio1a.fsf@posteo.net> <83czipkylw.fsf@gnu.org> <87pmmp9c63.fsf@posteo.net> <83v8wgk7tn.fsf@gnu.org> <87sfrk3b86.fsf@posteo.net> <834k0ovket.fsf@gnu.org> <5eb376b4-5f7e-6b00-286a-8bd0950dae22@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9693"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 54296@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, larsi@gnus.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 14 20:49:28 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o1BbU-0002IU-2O for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 20:49:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34414 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o1BbS-000738-Jo for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:49:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45926) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o1Bb4-00072j-NG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:49:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41869) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o1Bb4-0003sI-ET for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:49:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1Bb4-0005Dx-CM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:49:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:49:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 54296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 54296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B54296.165523249620018 (code B ref 54296); Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:49:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 54296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jun 2022 18:48:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35764 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1BaK-0005Co-6F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:48:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60566) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1BaI-0005CO-L0 for 54296@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:48:15 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42160) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o1BaC-0003lF-No; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:48:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=l01iQvncI4pfdoJTcyA4nMMO3Bfbm6pEPPPDDDI/SMc=; b=XD4qlFkecNu36OWV/mln 0CZF7f0fLwgh9SUW3RYYBMv3BVlket0d9XMse9vbTTMy/dlxgIxFzODFXFhu6SuHfhPZPAKfCmQSi MK3b0uUUsg1+0BXLM+kSV7p7tx0NAvfEa5pWjTRkVN86GWdJHDV9E9j/gA3fhbKCnI9kzBswH2O7Z sztisnIWvwyXyPPU7Qc3s9iCwRnsoPLc0mFxB+Vpvj9C3WKyrqR15toBn5oOL/0adRNVHL1fi3k2n jBuScykELlL8H1wRXfusZxjADt+mYMRMnwWxE6ORUuz2XiDXuOzBDq2DnL6yVRn/5e/9tR34cMYkH 0qojLki3fOj7nA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2825 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o1Ba8-0001r2-07; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:48:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5eb376b4-5f7e-6b00-286a-8bd0950dae22@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:43:41 +0300) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:234532 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:43:41 +0300 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, 54296@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 13.06.2022 15:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 03:21:13 +0300 > >> Cc: 54296@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> > >> On 14.03.2022 15:38, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > >>> The issue isn't that the default value couldn't be updated, but that if > >>> anyone has e.g. been using `project-kill-buffer-conditions' over the > >>> last 1½ years and has relied on the specific distinction between > >>> `major-mode' and `derived-mode', they would run in to unexpected > >>> results, that might result in more buffers being killed than intended, > >>> potentially data being lost that the user might not expect because of an > >>> update. > >> > >> I see that this point hasn't been addressed at all. > >> > >> Eli? > > > > Do you agree with Philip that deprecating or removing major-mode would > > be a problem for users of project-kill-buffer-conditions etc.? > > Yes. I also mentioned that here: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-06/msg00650.html So then everything is okay, AFAIU, because eventually Philip left that in the code. Right? > > I kinda gave up because Philip felt extremely uneasy with dropping > > major-mode, leaving us with just derived-mode, but I still think we > > shouldn't encourage Lisp programs to use major-mode. So if you don't > > think it would be a problem, I'd be happier if we removed major-mode > > and used derived-mode instead. > > If I didn't think Philip's point had merit, I wouldn't have brought it > up now. OK, but I didn't press my POV, so where's the problem, and why the emotions?