From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.lang.lua.general Subject: Re: Last call for lua-mode contributors Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:20:30 +0900 Message-ID: <87y5t1kagx.fsf@catnip.gol.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327116046 14479 80.91.229.12 (21 Jan 2012 03:20:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lua mailing list , immerrr again , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 21 04:20:42 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RoRVR-0003k0-65 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:20:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40289 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoRVQ-0000ku-EC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:20:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58940) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoRVN-0000kd-D1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:20:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoRVM-0002U4-6S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:20:37 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp11.dentaku.gol.com ([203.216.5.73]:58915) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoRVL-0002SZ-Su; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:20:36 -0500 Original-Received: from 218.231.234.50.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([218.231.234.50] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp11.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) (envelope-from ) id 1RoRVH-00066q-4A; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:20:31 +0900 Original-Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4A4242BD42; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:20:30 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:09 -0500") Original-Lines: 32 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL (outbound) X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 203.216.5.73 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:147802 gmane.comp.lang.lua.general:87553 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> [lua-mode redefines "_" as a word-component; it shouldn't, as it >> really messes with users' instincts, and makes Emacs commands less >> useful. Historically this was often done by language-modes as an > > BTW, this reminds me: why do word-based movement commands even care > about the syntax-table? I understand that it's the way they're > currently implemented, but AFAICT we don't actually want their behavior > to depend on the major mode, do we? Dunno, I suppose sometimes maybe it is reasonable to allow the details to be tweaked; it's "consistency of feel" which is the goal, which may not always entail literal consistency.... For instance: is a single-quote part of a word? In text-mode, it is, and that makes some sense, because single-quotes are mostly followed by a single letter to form a contracted thingie. Having word commands stop at the single-letter boundary in such cases would be pretty annoying and not particularly useful, and generally wouldn't feel "right" (even though there's a visual boundary). However in some programming language mode that uses single-quotes like Ada does, as an operator, you really want them to be punctuation, because they are used to separate independent pieces that are thought of as independent. -Miles -- Discriminate, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing is, if possible, more objectionable than another.