From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: forward-comment and syntax-ppss Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:49:30 +0200 Message-ID: <838tre7gqt.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83fd1db0-7362-6117-c5cd-715398c0dea4@gmail.com> <20161207220447.GA4503@acm.fritz.box> <20161208201517.GB3120@acm.fritz.box> <20161209190747.GC2203@acm.fritz.box> <5a70902f-882e-f616-74b2-df6eb81fc70c@yandex.ru> <20161211101715.GA14084@acm.fritz.box> <51c0554f-40d0-37a5-b134-17058343aa3f@yandex.ru> <20161216200630.GB3858@acm.fritz.box> <83r3576lxs.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1481986221 30100 195.159.176.226 (17 Dec 2016 14:50:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:50:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 17 15:50:18 2016 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 1cIGJT-0006cC-9Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:50:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36945 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIGJX-0001bG-PX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:50:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIGJP-0001Pq-Qk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:50:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIGJM-00023f-Q0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:50:11 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47178) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIGJM-00023b-Mp; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:50:08 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3720 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cIGJL-0008Qq-PH; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:50:08 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:41:18 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:210583 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:41:18 -0500 > > > Do you have an alternative proposal? > > Yes, I think it's easier to keep using narrow-to-region for that, but to > supplement the narrowing with some information as to whether widening > that narrowing is permissible or not (along the lines of > font-lock-dont-widen, but not specific to font-lock and allowing > intermediate narrowing so that we can widen the user's narrowing in an > Info buffer without widening all the way to point-min==1). What about nested narrowing? Don't we want to be able to keep the information about the outer restriction, so that we'd be able to restore it later? Also, just when would widening or narrowing be "not permissible"?