From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Default behaviour of RET. Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 08:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <762fa4a6-1a42-48b2-97ba-0f3ab7ef7ba5@default> References: <525D8946.4070406@gmx.at> <20131016171240.GA3125@acm.acm> <525EDC50.8010401@gmx.at> <20131016192642.GD3125@acm.acm> <87mwm8g61e.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20131018170320.GC2569@acm.acm> <20131018204551.GC3012@acm.acm> <20131019105836.GA2991@acm.acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1382195282 14881 80.91.229.3 (19 Oct 2013 15:08:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: martin rudalics , "Stephen J. Turnbull" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 19 17:08:05 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1VXY8K-0005ct-Cu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:08:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33533 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXY8J-0008Dm-Tm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:08:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34117) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXY89-0008Dd-H8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:08:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXY80-0006s2-Ug for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:07:53 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:21670) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXY80-0006rq-OX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:07:44 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r9JF7cTC018558 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:07:39 GMT Original-Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9JF7an0007661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:07:37 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt117.oracle.com (abhmt117.oracle.com [141.146.116.69]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9JF7apk018133; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:07:36 GMT In-Reply-To: <20131019105836.GA2991@acm.acm> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:164364 Archived-At: > OK. I've done a find-grep in .../lisp for all *.el matching > '^[^;\n]*(newline\([ )]\|$\)'. There are 199 matches. > There are 27 occurences of the exact string "(or (bolp) (newline))", > which looks like making sure point is at BOL in an output file. I haven't been following this thread; sorry. I don't have any calls to `newline' in my code, FWIW. Is the following a reasonable summary of the question & positions? 1. One position wants to change the behavior of `newline', so that all uses of it automatically benefit from the new behavior. 2. The other position wants to keep `newline' as it is, perhaps for some existing calls and in any case for some future calls. This position holds that the "old" behavior can be useful in some contexts. Sounds like two different functions are in order, for the old and new behaviors - au choix. If so, it's not a big deal to update the Emacs sources one way or the other. But in case there is 3rd-party code that uses `newline', it seems like the prudent choice would be to keep the existing name for the existing behavior and give the new behavior a new name. 3rd-party code that wants to "upgrade" to the new behavior can do that. And there would be no surprises. Is there more to it that this?