Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[Miles Bader]

Hi,

I just noticed these changes in CVS, with the following log entry:

   Updated to IDLWAVE version 5.5.  See idlwave.org

A few little nits:

  (1) When you update files in the Emacs sources from an external copy,
      _do not_ just "drop in" your latest version -- there may be
      changes to the Emacs copy that will be lost if you do that.

      Instead, either apply a patch from your old version to your new
      version to the emacs copy, or generate a patch in the emacs tree
      from the last time you merged to the current date, and apply that
      patch to your copy before committing it.

  (2) The new files have RCS keywords like:

         ;; Date: $Date: 2004/11/17 05:54:20 $

      Please do not use these in Emacs source files.  [As it happens,
      one of Emacs changes lost when you dropped in your new version was
      an RCS-keyword removal change.]

  (3) Please provide at least a minimal ChangeLog entry accompanying
      your changes.  [Maybe you just haven't committed it yet, but it's
      been a few hours since your changes, so...]

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
"Suppose He doesn't give a shit?  Suppose there is a God but He
just doesn't give a shit?"  [George Carlin]

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[Miles Bader]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 05:33:08PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> I just noticed these changes in CVS, with the following log entry:
>    Updated to IDLWAVE version 5.5.  See idlwave.org
> A few little nits:

I added a ChangeLog entry and fixed the most obvious regressions (RCS
keywords and disappearing arch taglines), but these files still need to be
vetted for missing changes.

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
((lambda (x) (list x x)) (lambda (x) (list x x)))

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[JD Smith]

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 05:05, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 05:33:08PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > I just noticed these changes in CVS, with the following log entry:
> >    Updated to IDLWAVE version 5.5.  See idlwave.org
> > A few little nits:
> 
> I added a ChangeLog entry and fixed the most obvious regressions (RCS
> keywords and disappearing arch taglines), but these files still need to be
> vetted for missing changes.

Thanks Miles.  I've looked at it closer, and as expected everything was
up to date in idlwave.el with the changes made since my last submission
of 2002-09-12 (except the arch-tag and superfluous CVS tags, of
course).  I suppose there is no arch-friendly $Date$ equivalent?

I had missed some very recent changes (last week or so) to idlw-shell.el
-- just simple re-organization and a few minor doc fixes.  I've
incorporated those and am about to check in.  One change which I haven't
included yet is replacing `assoc-ignore-case' with `assoc-string'.  This
must be a new function, and as such I won't be able to make it available
to my users for a while (or ever, if XEmacs never picks it up).  I can
update it in Savannah only, if that's your preference, but this will
requiring keeping our two versions (minorly) forked.  Just a small
change, so not really a problem, your preference.

The file idlw-rinfo.el is automatically generated and should not be
manually edited.  A few years back, RMS found some spelling mistakes
which traced back to errors made in the original IDL documentation: this
really amused and embarrassed their doc group.  Any spelling mistakes
are "correct" in the sense that they correspond to the manual from which
they were scanned.

JD

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[Stefan Monnier]

> I suppose there is no arch-friendly $Date$ equivalent?

The dislike for $Date, $Id$, ... has nothing to do with Arch but has to do
with branches because they create bogus conflicts.


        Stefan

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[Miles Bader]

JD Smith <jdsmith@as.arizona.edu> writes:
> Thanks Miles.  I've looked at it closer, and as expected everything was
> up to date in idlwave.el with the changes made since my last submission
> of 2002-09-12 (except the arch-tag and superfluous CVS tags, of
> course).  I suppose there is no arch-friendly $Date$ equivalent?

Arch doesn't care one way or the other about $Date$ -- which is the
problem:  RCS keywords a big pain _unless_ they're treated specially (of
course CVS does treat them specially).

Is there a reason you can't apply these changes (arch tags and RCS
keywords) to your sources too?

-Miles
-- 
`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
 But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
 they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[JD Smith]

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 18:00, Miles Bader wrote:
> JD Smith <jdsmith@as.arizona.edu> writes:
> > Thanks Miles.  I've looked at it closer, and as expected everything was
> > up to date in idlwave.el with the changes made since my last submission
> > of 2002-09-12 (except the arch-tag and superfluous CVS tags, of
> > course).  I suppose there is no arch-friendly $Date$ equivalent?
> 
> Arch doesn't care one way or the other about $Date$ -- which is the
> problem:  RCS keywords a big pain _unless_ they're treated specially (of
> course CVS does treat them specially).
> 
> Is there a reason you can't apply these changes (arch tags and RCS
> keywords) to your sources too?

Adding the arch tag is easy (and done).  I tend to use $Date$ myself,
but can trim that when submitting to you guys easily enough.  Is there a
recommendation on assoc-ignore-case?

Thanks,

JD

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[Luc Teirlinck]

JD Smith wrote:

   Is there a recommendation on assoc-ignore-case?

Yes it has been declared obsolete and using it produces the following
compiler warning:

Warning: `assoc-ignore-case' is an obsolete function; use
`assoc-string' instead.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>    Is there a recommendation on assoc-ignore-case?

> Yes it has been declared obsolete and using it produces the following
> compiler warning:

> Warning: `assoc-ignore-case' is an obsolete function; use
> `assoc-string' instead.

But since assoc-string is a new function, any package which wants to run on
older Emacsen will want to stick to assoc-ignore-case for a few more years.


        Stefan

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[JD Smith]

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 09:23, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >    Is there a recommendation on assoc-ignore-case?
> 
> > Yes it has been declared obsolete and using it produces the following
> > compiler warning:
> 
> > Warning: `assoc-ignore-case' is an obsolete function; use
> > `assoc-string' instead.
> 
> But since assoc-string is a new function, any package which wants to run on
> older Emacsen will want to stick to assoc-ignore-case for a few more years.

I've left assoc-ignore-case in for now.  If you'd like to revert it to
assoc-string for distribution with a new Emacs, feel free to do so.  The
new idlw-help.el file I just added also has a couple of instances of
assoc-ignore-case.  I'll be sticking with the latter in my source
distribution, at least for now.

JD

Re: Changes to lisp/progmodes/idlw-*.el

[JD Smith]

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 01:33, Miles Bader wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just noticed these changes in CVS, with the following log entry:
> 
>    Updated to IDLWAVE version 5.5.  See idlwave.org
> 
> A few little nits:
> 
>   (1) When you update files in the Emacs sources from an external copy,
>       _do not_ just "drop in" your latest version -- there may be
>       changes to the Emacs copy that will be lost if you do that.
> 
>       Instead, either apply a patch from your old version to your new
>       version to the emacs copy, or generate a patch in the emacs tree
>       from the last time you merged to the current date, and apply that
>       patch to your copy before committing it.

I figured this would catch some attention.  I do apologize for the huge
change dump, but idlwave receives much more active development in an
external community than is possible within Emacs.  I do track your
changes regularly, and aside from the RCS, had included everything.  In
particular, RMS recently contacted me about incorrect usage of
interactive-p, which is included in this version.  I would be eager ot
hear of any other changes I inadvertently lost; it was not my intention.

JD

>   (2) The new files have RCS keywords like:
> 
>          ;; Date: $Date: 2004/11/17 05:54:20 $
> 
>       Please do not use these in Emacs source files.  [As it happens,
>       one of Emacs changes lost when you dropped in your new version was
>       an RCS-keyword removal change.]
> 
>   (3) Please provide at least a minimal ChangeLog entry accompanying
>       your changes.  [Maybe you just haven't committed it yet, but it's
>       been a few hours since your changes, so...]

I will update the Changelog.

JD