Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble

["Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

Richard M. Stallman wrote:
>     I am not sure. I liked html+php-mode better.
> 
>     Maybe using the name php-mode would also create confusion since the name
>     is already in use.
> 
> I don't see the problem.  Would anyone now in the habit of running
> `php-mode' be disappointed after this change?

I don't know for sure, but some people seem to want to use just php-mode
instead of the solution with mumamo. It is not clear to me why and if
some people still prefer that.

It might be that they find mumamo complex or that they do not want the
whole of nXhtml.

It might also be because some php files actually contains only php code.

>     I have suggested a different solution to this quite general problem. I
>     think a list of major mode priorities would be better. I have
>     implemented that in majmodpri.el which I am resending here.
> 
> I do not see how majmodpri would help solve this problem.
> It does not seem relevant.

Again, as in my previous message (to your other message), I think the
commentary in majmodpri explains why majmodpri.el is relevant.

> Here's the scenario: the user visits a file called foo.php which
> contains code in various languages.  How do you propose for Emacs
> to pick the right major mode?

I propose that Emacs uses the same mechanism as today. That means that
the order of the entries in `auto-mode-alist' is used.

But I want to give the user control over the order in `auto-mode-alist'.
That is what majmodpri.el is for.

> I proposed two solutions:
> 
> * Always call `php-mode', and define `php-mode' using mumamo to handle
> all the languages that can be in a PHP file.
> 
> * Always call `php-mode', and define `php-mode' to handle all the
> languages that are found in this PHP file.

I think the only reasonable way to do it is to use mumamo. (Maybe CEDET
can change that in the future, but I rather think that CEDET and mumamo
should cooperate.)