From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Deniz Dogan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: new buffer - should its mode reflect its name when the name matches auto-mode-alist? Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:47:04 +0200 Message-ID: <7b501d5c0909220747m71565340m36be3026f91f5db8@mail.gmail.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1253630944 14379 80.91.229.12 (22 Sep 2009 14:49:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:49:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 22 16:48:57 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mq6fo-0003CU-TV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:48:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54463 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mq6fo-0007e7-GG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mq6eU-0007E3-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:47:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mq6eO-0007C8-IK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:47:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58314 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mq6eO-0007Bw-5K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:47:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ew0-f208.google.com ([209.85.219.208]:42486) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mq6eN-0002ZK-HN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:47:27 -0400 Original-Received: by ewy4 with SMTP id 4so480579ewy.31 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=YPsFjiXmXxuJGDaZGCH8cr7v7P33jD6dE3qbq9jms1k=; b=T6/31ovQqy+svaL6bqK63zX7xxplDn0dUxhRFt3VHo1vvcCHLTq/smtCKmdNsemkkD f1VqA3ToivM3vrZNHmuVI5WZxsMzO9J2k1KqbHIQq+1EPB7e5SJeoKyVIIjnykH0a1cK LWtL5kqkLZhjdnmldbvKmqiIP068W0P1u6bF4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=I+sUp+Vw0UjeZ8Y3i8OQ7+uZD9TZU3yLAtpjwu0IqG8MbhhJNYmI2zg8NbqXzSITOu ConK0kTLjE22uGVKtvN1pjjPUbxQjtO9pseX4c0G23Lo8Yc+UPjm0DCZAwlmarP4mYDQ ydLiUb7Xkr5bpiNuMYe5cA0zBDl9dcYkhzdMU= Original-Received: by 10.211.147.25 with SMTP id z25mr4446536ebn.84.1253630845106; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:115521 Archived-At: 2009/9/22 Drew Adams : > Haven't thought about this before, but I wonder if the mode should respect > auto-mode-alist when you create a new buffer? There's no doubt a good reason or > two why we don't do this - just wondering. > > E.g. `C-x b foo.el', where there is no existing buffer foo.el. The mode is > Fundamental; should it be Emacs-Lisp instead? > > (I realize that a new buffer need not be intended to be saved as a file.) > As an end-user and not having contributed anything to Emacs myself, I would expect the buffer to "respect" auto-mode-alist, i.e. set the mode depending on the buffer name. However, I think the default behavior when creating buffers non-interactively should *not* respect auto-mode-alist. -- Deniz Dogan