From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Request: add cl-font-lock to Emacs or Elpa Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3e25feef-0908-41a0-8f54-eb0dc50cce90@default> References: <56660D97-604F-4C15-8961-D35F07E6F29B@spensertruex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="10484"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Spenser Truex , emacs-devel To: Stefan Monnier , Spenser Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 17 19:35:25 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1jEH3k-0002bN-Le for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:35:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39448 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jEH3j-0004Y5-H6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:35:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53753) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jEGty-0006ts-4u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:25:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jEGtu-0000h6-MW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:25:16 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:51566) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jEGtu-0000Ym-DJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:25:14 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02HICtkB169995; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:25:11 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=6lEaJPEa6N6wi1cqfg6wS8R4mBEg9Gn8pcLwqZi6lBw=; b=msQlrjKPCYM2ZFsPL/kFZz9qNWAZC85W36cPQrPBRh8LaebCX6Rn1ZA8zy+Cm8TJTOVx URE+Iccc6AtFto5kZvgsWU9LK5Xk2LZQxzECuY68QtC9RDI9hx/quZIlgpB5j6FrlSyG 2rlePAbYhG+4KpnmjevNb1UqQh7F+c1m4d/JdIB5jEiMzAFCZhyzvxZGCIxM8KnUZcPY 8/FqqOOvK615QY5Lx5evsatg/Iecq+dSVVBuiDbnb75P7T+TlyLdGqljuu/E6dwhRK+4 vqhL+v/OWsqj/gQtD/6DxJ2BVe/DeRmEu+bU1Y9t5eGJlKiuMkK8lOanquQDUFcSny4K /A== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2yrq7kxj29-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:25:11 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02HIKeVt026810; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:25:10 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2ys8rfds80-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:25:10 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 02HIP8do013910; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:25:08 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4966.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9563 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2003170071 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9563 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2003170071 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.78 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:245564 Archived-At: > >> I'd also suggest changing the file name from > >> `cl-font-lock.el' to `font-lock-cl.el'. >=20 > This is a file that affects `lisp-mode` and not `font-lock` (it's partly > a philosophical choice, but support for "font-lock in mode foo-mode" > traditionally resides in the definition of foo-mode rather than in the > definition of font-lock). Ah, yes. I agree with that. > So "cl-" is preferable to "font-lock-". Neither looks right to me, now, given your point. Why isn't this just in lisp-mode.el? I see your reply to Eli about that. In that case, how about something like lisp-mode-fl.el or lisp-fl.el? Or if, as you suggested in your reply to Eli, we moved some of lisp-mode.el to a separate file, and if it made sense for that moved stuff to be in the same file as the font-lock stuff, maybe lisp-extra.el, lisp-misc.el, or something else? > IOW maybe there's a better choice than `cl-font-lock`, but > `font-lock-cl` is definitely not it.