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#74339: 30.0.92; CC Mode stomps C TS Mode Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:43:28 +0200 Message-ID: <86cyiwimlr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h68al2qz.fsf@gnu.org> <867c95kaye.fsf@gnu.org> <861pzdk4aq.fsf@gnu.org> <86zfm1in2p.fsf@gnu.org> <86wmh5hrya.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8701"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 74339@debbugs.gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 15 15:44:29 2024 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 1tBxYi-000253-F5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:44:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBxYL-0002l4-Mx; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:44:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBxYJ-0002kj-1c for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBxYI-0004Hp-Pg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:44:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:To:Subject; bh=m4e6ajHmg8P3b3bQWvI1d5VmAzpTouicZKksIYV93t8=; b=WM8ZUbW4QzjXQ+T1o6Wy/4MGPObrbUQ1Mtii0p8vdFQc8v5X3/kGtuIbopGs5X9+vhD9qbqfICODf8eoURTp/Iu/V0YhaKG4UvZRXv3jg1jAnql++aVFUHk0sR613BGGzDhApPZP1hmCUjGWJeywkG9N7hqjukjHFMZegS4+hgK3/DLJ9DeMZSWy0LkMibcaOzWClqocz4Vh4Gz2vE9PanJWl+pXPZwk4Cia2JYN7Thn24p2/sCjeBmM9VXDWbvXfTzB/p3MV/ecTLd8y1X1dEpd95zIyAlbn4JCm+zr/W94zuAoSpUHsOWN1H/BpmjZJ2ADIv6zcJqakenPV2aqcQ==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tBxYI-0008Aj-AS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:44:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 74339 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 74339-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74339.173168182331379 (code B ref 74339); Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 74339) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2024 14:43:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49115 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tBxXy-00089y-KA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:43:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36428) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tBxXw-00089i-1V for 74339@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:43:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBxXp-0004E0-Eb; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:43:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=m4e6ajHmg8P3b3bQWvI1d5VmAzpTouicZKksIYV93t8=; b=fGgAMbCmUMvg GONA+h2Jb/WDhV7b9P3JMJo0QCHdS+9MT5XAbruGDapeEdRfL+KulgPzMitpPbxHtumgUvBNmEUwW i3GNq7UiYLtAQ7lW39pT4O1ITaEArGcA0JxADimE5VfOh6DGgjIuXBrDkyV+UsbaIELWbgzKmUYO3 XE1JOC24ezB0vmTByylMZ3D3bLv7p0X4VlNaQDjuGeOB4N/D8O+F+O28XGp00a/Ceng8YFi3xnody gyWiXoQ0XIHo10eeBY7u9A2/cANu2xEhWBikcRg7A4kMDONmQ3Gn1JGk4hU9yI/FdnHV+J2m6p73/ RosoQz81gTgBfRiYGWE/ZQ==; In-Reply-To: (message from Alan Mackenzie on Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:04:25 +0000) 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:295395 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:04:25 +0000 > Cc: 74339@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > The symmetry that I was talking about is in handling c-mode > > specification in auto-mode-alist: it will either invoke c-mode or > > c-ts-mode. > > Excuse me, but that is NOT symmetry. It is grossly assymetric. If you > weren't agreeing to symmetry why did you say you were? It appears that we meant two different meanings of "symmetry" here. I was agreeing to the meaning I had in mind, which I explained above. > > This is the issue at hand: to allow users to express their preferences > > about c-mode in a way that is reversible. > > See, it's starting already: the abuse of `c-mode' to mean "the current > mode handling C" rather than "C Mode". It is this dilution of CC Mode's > trademarks which will be so damaging to CC Mode. `c-mode' means C Mode, > and must carry on meaning that. Why did you use `c-mode' in that way? We treat c-mode as a general indication that the file's contents is written in C. That is how major-mode-remap-* machinery treats a mode's symbol. Once we started supporting mode remapping, the literal meaning of foo-mode to mean a single mode is no longer accurate, because remapping might mean the actual mode that is turned on is a different mode. > You agreed, I think yesterday, that the solution we come up with will > not damage CC Mode. I would like to be sure that this is still the > case. I don't see any damage in what I propose. Mode remapping doesn't denigrate the remapped mode, it is just a vehicle for users to prefer a different mode without a lot of customizations and changes to actual files. It is analogous to changing the attributes of a face: the face is still called by the same name, but its attributes can be very different. > > The symmetry is in what cc-mode and c-ts-mode do with > > major-mode-remap-defaults: each one of them removes the existing > > elements that remap c-mode and adds its own elements which prefer > > itself for C files. IOW, the symmetry is in allowing users to prefer > > c-mode or c-ts-mode as they wish, and allow them to change the > > preference during a session with predictable results, regardless of > > the preference: the preferred mode will be used after its file is > > reloaded. > > Yesterday, you made several decisions/concessions: your post at Thu, 14 > Nov 2024 18:59:53 +0200 read as follows: > > ######################################################################### > > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:20:37 +0000 > > Cc: 74339@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > > > I think so, provided there was symmetry between the tree-sitter > > > > modes and CC Mode. I would suggest the obvious fix; loading > > > > either one of the libraries should append its entries to > > > > auto-mode-alist, having removed any "lower down" entries. > > > > > That's what I suggested. If you agree, let's make that change and > > > move on. > > > > OK. It would seem there is then no need to put entries for > > c-mode/c-ts-mode into major-mode-remap-defaults. I don't think this > > solution is optimal, though. Perhaps we can come up with something > > better for Emacs 31. But let's just go with this "last loaded wins" > > strategem for Emacs 30. > > OK, thanks. So I guess you will soon make that change in cc-mode.el > on the release branch? > ######################################################################### > > As can be seen, you agreed to fix the bug by making entries in > auto-mode-alist and not using major-mode-remap-defaults. Less than 24 > hours later, you've changed your mind. How am I meant to keep up with > this form of discussion? I've misread your proposal, sorry. I didn't see the reference to auto-mode-alist, only to major-mode-remap-defaults. Avoiding adding the c-mode entries to major-mode-remap-defaults is fine by me, if c-mode will instead remove the entries put there by c-ts-mode. (Although I think that it is better to add '(c-mode) after such removal, for better reliability.) > What changed between yesterday and today, that using auto-mode-alist is > now no longer acceptable? Nothing changed. I never wanted to change auto-mode-alist, as that would mean going back. I simply missed your single reference to that, sorry. > I suggest again, that the use of auto-mode-alist in the way we agreed > yesterday is the best way forward. It is simple, well understood, and > has been in use for, perhaps, 40 years. It does not have the > unpredictable effects that the use of major-mode-remap-defaults would > have. No substantial objections to this fix have been raised, beyond > "it's new code late in a release cycle". > > Whichever fix we use, there is going to be new code in the release > branch. In any of these fixes, the code is going to be simple, easily > tested, and well understood. So let's choose a fix for more substantial > reasons. The new code I have in mind (similar to what Stefan posted) is a simple change of the current code, and affects the same variable. The suggestion to modify auto-mode-alist, by contrast, is a much more significant change wrt what we have now. So I prefer the former, at least for the release branch. > > There was never a feature in Emacs to invoke c-mode when a file > > specifies c-ts-mode. (There are also no files which specify c-ts-mode > > in their file-local variables, and auto-mode-alist doesn't mention > > c-ts-mode, so such a remapping has a largely academic value.) The > > current code in cc-mode.el, which adds elements to > > major-mode-remap-defaults, doesn't remap c-ts-mode to c-mode, either. > > So this interpretation of "symmetry" is a separate issue that should > > be discussed separately, and we definitely don't want to add such > > features to the release branch at this point, even if we agree to > > having that in the future. > > > (Stefan's thinking is that it's probably wrong to specify c-ts-mode in > > in auto-mode-alist and in file-local variables anyway, although this > > is still under discussion. > > This is a critical point. I don't know why Stefan thinks it would be > wrong to use auto-mode-alist. He hasn't said. He did, in https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=74339#77 : > >> Not quite: `auto-mode-alist` should always map `.c` files to `c-mode`. > > Why "always"? > > Because the preference between `c-mode` and `c-ts-mode` should apply not > only to those files whose mode is decided by `auto-mode-alist` but also > to those where this is decided via other means such as via a file-local > `mode` setting, or via `magic-mode-alist`, or ... > > If we agree to that, it would mean that specifying c-mode in > > auto-mode-alist and -* c -*- cookies in a file does not necessarily > > mean to invoke c-mode literally, but instead to invoke the mode in > > which the user wants to visit C files, i.e. a mode that is subject to > > user options. > > How then would it be possible to specify C Mode in auto-mode-alist? > It wouldn't. If the user prefers to use c-ts-mode, Emacs should honor that. Users who want to use c-mode are supported by default, and don't need to do anything. Thus, it is already possible to specify C Mode in auto-mode-alist: that's the only mode mentioned there for C files. So I don't quite understand your question: it is already possible to specify C Mode, and we are actually doing that by default. > My proposal yesterday of using `current-c-mode' would solve > this problem neatly - the user would be able to enter any of > `current-c-mode', `c-ts-mode', or `c-mode' to express her meaning > precisely. This can be discussed for master, but it is not appropriate for the release branch, for the reasons I explained already.