From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Markus Triska Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#31915: 26.0.50; highlight-regexp does not highlight regexp Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:22:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87sh5h9mqa.fsf@metalevel.at> References: <87a7rp5sre.fsf@metalevel.at> <83a7rps7x4.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1529529667 6402 195.159.176.226 (20 Jun 2018 21:21:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:21:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Emacs/24.5 Cc: 31915@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 20 23:21:03 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkXG-0001Vk-Mz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:21:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51827 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkZM-0004gO-7q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:23:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48543) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkZD-0004g4-PK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:23:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkZC-0002lg-SO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:23:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:50114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkZC-0002lU-Of for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:23:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkZC-0004Od-Fe for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:23:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Markus Triska Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:23:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 31915 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 31915-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B31915.152952977816874 (code B ref 31915); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:23:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 31915) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jun 2018 21:22:58 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58011 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkZ7-0004O6-RJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from metalevel.at ([78.46.218.83]:37988) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkZ4-0004Nu-Nv for 31915@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: by metalevel.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5081DA126B; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:22:53 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83a7rps7x4.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:07:51 +0300") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:147671 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Actually, that buffer is in Fundamental mode, where there's no > font-lock. Somehow, I suspect you already know that. In the snippet I posted, I used the variable font-lock-mode to test whether font-lock is enabled. Its documentation states: Non-nil if Font-Lock mode is enabled. Is this documentation valid? If not, could you please adapt it, or - alternatively - make the implementation match the description? > Would it suffice to say "Note that in Fundamental mode, there's no > font lock, so overlays are always used"? Or did you mean something > else? Personally, I suspect that adding this would not cover all cases. I get this impression from looking at hi-lock-set-pattern: (if (and font-lock-mode (font-lock-specified-p major-mode)) This condition seems to be different from what is documented. Thank you and all the best, Markus