From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: E Sabof Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunkr101338:*lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el(syntax-ppss): More sanitycheck to catchcatch Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:34:19 +0000 Message-ID: <87r4717l6c.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r47bi1e5.fsf@yandex.ru> <52F96284.50507@yandex.ru> <52FAE12B.6060101@yandex.ru> <52FC3BEE.60604@yandex.ru> <52FCD2B4.5080006@yandex.ru> <52FD9F1D.50205@yandex.ru> <83mwhucg1h.fsf@gnu.org> <878ute589i.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83d2iqc84m.fsf@gnu.org> <87wqgxkcr9.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n41db0d.fsf@gnu.org> <87k3cw53d1.fsf@maru2.md5i.com> <83lhxcbzs2.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1392654873 30564 80.91.229.3 (17 Feb 2014 16:34:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:34:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Michael Welsh Duggan , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 17 17:34:41 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WFR9T-0001EQ-P6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:34:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42536 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFR9T-0000L3-6K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:34:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49074) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFR9M-0000Kx-6h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:34:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFR9D-00019i-Bl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:34:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]:59133) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFR9D-00019Q-55; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:34:23 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hi5so2557936wib.5 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:34:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=zFJ8JiFSDTJ8QbZ8itZlocGl3aZb/b6PdZuS8dcdROU=; b=JCdsXQMkHtfd3h7m0OlGED+U42xGNWCuITg7N+0STV4EHTwOLi9VnIJnz/5gh5rRjx bkgJzeTyq1/zhF7grSZnrJm3dZuwDLs/ohnX/8LaxBChs94qDzw2PYlWOOhrLPiWzikS dlp/W0hswLWl5Ex6JD6W6qnCfdpMv6XMCTAfv3b9khonZZScg3Ufov69cZUo8YbuVNnM F1KpQzlf7pY2NQ1dT5vRfbWRYeQMD6EwTgM52mN1Y68i8OsXmOJKyXKyD3tlo4/t2eMS vZYRG8wAvw0atGcGl97TpgW1IG/NwlAoL7e6InfWQZm5Efe5kUiLouigVngRSV7UpoGB NmYw== X-Received: by 10.180.12.115 with SMTP id x19mr14006679wib.19.1392654861869; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:34:21 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ubuntu ([2.218.154.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hy8sm38123829wjb.2.2014.02.17.08.34.20 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:34:21 -0800 (PST) User-agent: mu4e 0.9.9.6pre2; emacs 24.3.50.4 In-reply-to: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169699 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > - there can be nesting relationships between chunks, e.g. with two major > modes A and B, a sequence of chunks of "A1, B1, A2, B2, A3" could > represent "(A1 (B1) A2 (B2) A3)" or "(A1 (B1 (A2) B2) A3)", where > indentation of A3 could depend on A1 in the second case but on A2 in > the first. Might the effect be the same, if each chunk increased or decreased the depth? Evgeni