From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lute Kamstra Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Strange code in derived.el. Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:32:23 +0200 Message-ID: <87slzqs2o8.fsf@xs4all.nl> References: <87u0k7jz7k.fsf@xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1118414454 13537 80.91.229.2 (10 Jun 2005 14:40:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:40:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 10 16:40:53 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dgkfc-00018O-Vg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:39:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dgkml-0002zu-HI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:47:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dgkjy-0002J3-0y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:44:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dgkjq-0002HB-Qz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:44:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dgkjq-0002DO-7X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:44:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [194.109.24.34] (helo=smtp-vbr14.xs4all.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DgkYy-0006gs-TK; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:32:49 -0400 Original-Received: from pijl (a80-127-67-124.adsl.xs4all.nl [80.127.67.124]) by smtp-vbr14.xs4all.nl (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5AEWOBX025839; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:32:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Lute.Kamstra@xs4all.nl) Original-Received: from lute by pijl with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1DgkYZ-00041A-00; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:32:23 +0200 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:29:23 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) Original-Lines: 25 X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:38523 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:38523 Richard Stallman writes: > Is the expansion of this define-derive-mode macro ever run in older > Emacsen? Wouldn't delay-mode-hooks (used unconditionally) be missing > as well, then? > > Shall I just delete the test? > > Please leave it alone. There is no need to change this Ok. > and there are lots of other things that need doing so we > can make a release. I know: I'm working on them. At the moment, I am trying to fix all major modes that don't use run-mode-hooks and all derived major modes that don't delay the running of their parent's hooks. To make sure I make no mistakes I was studying the code of define-derived-mode. When I see code I don't understand, I feel less confident about making changes on related things. Maybe you could explain the rationale behind the test so that I can take that into account when I'm fixing the derived modes? Lute.