From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#19853: Acknowledgement (25.0.50; ElDoc is displayed whether eldoc-mode is enabled or not) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:38:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <864mqqgh3j.fsf@yandex.ru> <55AE4DA2.1060505@yandex.ru> <87wpoxko2a.fsf@web.de> <4b554a3b-bc21-859e-4cfc-3c82901ea32f@yandex.ru> <87shzlkngx.fsf@web.de> <7be513e7-2d38-1e78-46f6-03ca17d58f90@yandex.ru> <87oaa9klc5.fsf@web.de> <87k2kxkjsc.fsf@web.de> <8760wglust.fsf@web.de> <379eb804-473d-40b9-2a04-1d7daafefa08@yandex.ru> <871t74lu5n.fsf@web.de> <87r3f2pm3l.fsf@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458661393 14252 80.91.229.3 (22 Mar 2016 15:43:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 19853@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 22 16:43:03 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOSV-00055H-0g for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:43:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37916 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOSU-0005k8-I2 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:43:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55785) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOOh-0007xj-Cj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:39:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOOc-000525-Cu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34806) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOOc-000521-99 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOOc-00063p-4Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:39:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:39:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 19853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19853.145866111523259 (code B ref 19853); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:39:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2016 15:38:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60166 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOOB-000635-G1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:38:35 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:20735) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aiOO9-00062q-5G for 19853@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:38:34 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CgDQA731xV/5a2xEVcgxCBMoJQyGAEAgKBPD0QAQEBAQEBAYEKQQWDXQEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJBOIFwMKCMofIoRiAQEBAQYBAQEBHos6hQUHhC0FnxeSFIIUgUUjggocFYFZIjGCRwEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0CgDQA731xV/5a2xEVcgxCBMoJQyGAEAgKBPD0QAQEBAQEBAYEKQQWDXQEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJBOIFwMKCMofIoRiAQEBAQYBAQEBHos6hQUHhC0FnxeSFIIUgUUjggocFYFZIjGCRwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,465,1427774400"; d="scan'208";a="197755314" Original-Received: from 69-196-182-150.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.182.150]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2016 11:38:27 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 2DF5063F25; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:38:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87r3f2pm3l.fsf@web.de> (Michael Heerdegen's message of "Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:29:34 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:115327 Archived-At: I don't have an opinion on this. Stefan >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Heerdegen writes: > Hi, > maybe we can come to a decision now. > Stefan, you were the one that implemented `global-eldoc-mode', and > decided not to use `define-globalized-minor-mode' to do this. I think I > understand your intention (use global hook bindings). > The subject of this bug report is that the global eldoc mode behaves > differently from other global modes that have a local counterpart: in > particular, turning off the global mode doesn't turn off the local mode > in all buffers where it is on. This is somewhat unexpected for the user > and I think more or less only an unintended consequence of the > implementation. > We discussed two alternatives to make the global eldoc mode behave more > like a globalized mode, namely (1) do it indeed with > `define-globalized-minor-mode' and (2) >> > > Hmm, I think the only way out would be to add the stuff to the >> > > global hook bindings unconditionally when eldoc is loaded - no >> > > matter whether the global mode is on or not, and never remove it. >> > > And use only one (buffer local) variable for controlling, >> > > `eldoc-mode', that the local mode sets locally. The variable >> > > `global-eldoc-mode' would not appear in the code any more. >> > > `global-eldoc-mode' would become a trivial globalized minor mode >> > > that would only turn the local value of `eldoc-mode' in all >> > > buffers. Would that make sense? > Did we overlook an advantage of your implementation? Which of these two > alternatives would you prefer? > Thanks, > Michael.