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: CC Mode and electric-pair "problem". Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 18:24:14 +0300 Message-ID: <83lgavkmht.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180617201351.GA4580@ACM> <20180618103654.GA9771@ACM> <20180618154227.GB3973@ACM> <20180619050244.GA3946@ACM> <20180626182348.GB4464@ACM> <20180630180926.GB6816@ACM> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1530458556 2979 195.159.176.226 (1 Jul 2018 15:22:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 15:22:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 01 17:22:32 2018 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 1fZeBL-0000g9-5w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 17:22:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54703 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fZeDQ-0005Tk-Og for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:24:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36176) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fZeDF-0005P3-ED for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:24:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fZeDD-0000m2-2I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:24:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42969) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fZeDC-0000lt-V0; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:24:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3856 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fZeDB-0000Jo-QU; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:24:26 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:37:33 -0400) 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:226870 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:37:33 -0400 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > My point of view is that Emacs should focus on behaving as correctly as > possible for valid code. The only effort worth doing w.r.t invalid code > is to avoid doing something clearly harmful and to help the user make > the code valid again. Anything further than that is time that would be > better spent improving the handling of valid code. > > I don't see any concrete benefit (for the user) of the new behavior over > the old (or the reverse for that matter). Either behavior is equally > good and which behavior is better will depend on things which Emacs > cannot know unless the user explicitly tells us. > [...] > Personally, as a user, I don't really care which behavior I get: it's > a rare transient situation which I'll fix soon anyway, whether Emacs > tells me about it or not. This reflects my opinions as well.