From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:24:17 +0000 Message-ID: <20170207212417.GC2490@acm> References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <9d0b3156-e8b2-c2d8-0d0c-a025861e5e0c@yandex.ru> <20170203164457.GB2250@acm> <20170204110259.GB2047@acm> <20170206200116.GD3568@acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486502720 23847 195.159.176.226 (7 Feb 2017 21:25:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:25:20 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 07 22:25:17 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1cbDGG-0005sK-Vd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 22:25:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56440 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbDGM-0005QN-Gx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:25:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41820) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbDFi-0005Pt-8B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:24:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbDFf-0005HP-0s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:24:42 -0500 Original-Received: from ocolin.muc.de ([193.149.48.4]:60840 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbDFe-0005Gu-MH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:24:38 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 76318 invoked by uid 3782); 7 Feb 2017 21:24:37 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548C7312.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.140.115.18]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 22:24:36 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 13957 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Feb 2017 21:24:17 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.4 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212114 Archived-At: Hello, Stefan. On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 17:33:29 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> char foo[] = "for (x = 0; x < n; x++) /* Loop header */\n"; > >> ^ ^ > >> where the user narrows to the string, then goes to EOL and does > >> M-: (forward-comment -1) > > Even if the user narrows to the string, it's still a string. It's not a > > comment, and can't be one. > As the user who did the above operation I beg to differ: I narrowed > specifically because I wanted to treat this as the chunk of C code > it is. It would likely have been less work to have temporarily deleted the first string quote. > It would be arrogant for Emacs to claim it knows better than the user. More arrogant than a user expecting C syntax to be superseeded? As a matter of interest, what was the real use case for this, how often do you do it, and how big would the loss be if you couldn't do it any more? > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).