define-major-mode

define-major-mode

[Miles Bader]

Somebody remind me why there's no define-major-mode macro...?

I know the same effect can be achieved with (define-derived-mode foo
fundamental-mode ...), but thought that Richard didn't people to do that
(I sort of agree that it looks kludgey)...

But why doesn't emacs have somethign like:

(defmacro define-major-mode (name &rest blah)
  `(define-derived-mode ,name fundamental-mode ,@blah))

...?

-miles

-- 
Accord, n. Harmony.

Re: define-major-mode

[Stefan Monnier]

> Somebody remind me why there's no define-major-mode macro...?
> I know the same effect can be achieved with (define-derived-mode foo
> fundamental-mode ...), but thought that Richard didn't people to do that
> (I sort of agree that it looks kludgey)...

Nowadays, most modes should derive from another: either special-mode,
text-mode or prog-mode.  And fundamental-mode (aka nil) is a perfectly
valid parent mode, if none of those fit.


        Stefan

Re: define-major-mode

[Miles Bader]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> Somebody remind me why there's no define-major-mode macro...?
>> I know the same effect can be achieved with (define-derived-mode foo
>> fundamental-mode ...), but thought that Richard didn't people to do that
>> (I sort of agree that it looks kludgey)...
>
> Nowadays, most modes should derive from another: either special-mode,
> text-mode or prog-mode.  And fundamental-mode (aka nil) is a perfectly
> valid parent mode, if none of those fit.

hmm, I didn't know about `prog-mode' and `special-mode' -- when did
those appear?  [I'm wondering if they'd be acceptable to external
maintainers supporting older emacs versions/xemacs.]

-Miles

-- 
Electricity, n. The cause of all natural phenomena not known to be caused by
something else.

Re: define-major-mode

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Miles Bader writes:

 > hmm, I didn't know about `prog-mode' and `special-mode' -- when did
 > those appear?  [I'm wondering if they'd be acceptable to external
 > maintainers supporting older emacs versions/xemacs.]

You'll have to ask them, but I would suspect they'd not be real happy
about it since they'd have to emulate the functionality in older
XEmacsen, including currently stable 21.4 and trunk 21.5 (and I
presume older Emacsen, but I have no idea how old).

Just let time take its course with respect to the external
maintainers.