From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] lisp/progmodes/etags.el don't (forward-char) as it's overriden next line Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:47:05 +0200 Message-ID: <83ef73uzrq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20190316015314.2335-1-Hi-Angel@yandex.ru> <20190316015314.2335-2-Hi-Angel@yandex.ru> <1552945510.7027.2@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="33137"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Konstantin Kharlamov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 19 07:47:58 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h68XV-0008V7-Q4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 07:47:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52473 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h68XU-0000kC-R1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:47:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49349) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h68Wp-0000jw-8a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:47:15 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35943) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h68Wo-0001x8-Gj; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:47:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3601 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1h68Wo-0002ea-0J; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:47:14 -0400 In-reply-to: <1552945510.7027.2@yandex.ru> (message from Konstantin Kharlamov on Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:45:10 +0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:234355 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:45:10 +0300 > From: Konstantin Kharlamov > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > 1. Why was the amount of whitespace in the tags table different from > > that in the source file? > > It's a bug in anjuta-tags So if/when that bug is fixed (maybe it's fixed already), there will be no reason to make changes in etags.el? > > 3. Why are the issue and you talking about "trailing whitespace", > > while the difference between Expected and Actual in the issue is > > in leading whitespace, not trailing whitespace? > > Sorry for confusion here, I was imagining: given a string, whitespace > may "trail" on both sides of it. But I'm not a native speaker. OK, no problem. I guessed something like that. > Okay, whatever. I get your position. Though I disagree, but we clearly > have different priorities here: while I'm focusing on a Emacs user, > you're focusing on technical correctness. It's not just technical correctness. etags.el is used for a very large number of different "languages" (some of them are not programming languages at all, like HTML), so any syntactic change that might be a no-brainer for programming languages could break some other "language" we currently support. > Can my 1-st patch from the series be merged though? I will review that soon, please wait for a little bit longer. I'm somewhat hard-pressed for free time lately. (Or maybe someone else here could volunteer to review that sooner?)