From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unifying "foo-mode"s and "foo-ts-mode"s Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:57:59 +0000 Message-ID: <87zgb47uk8.fsf@posteo.net> References: <877cyagmti.fsf@posteo.net> <831qoi85u7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt76f4n4.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfgy6l0n.fsf@gnu.org> <877cy9b1k0.fsf_-_@posteo.net> <87wn69oy1c.fsf@thornhill.no> <87edsh9gzn.fsf@posteo.net> <87tu1dowpp.fsf@thornhill.no> <87o7rl7x4i.fsf@posteo.net> <83tu1c6got.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33449"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: theo@thornhill.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org, casouri@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 30 16:58:18 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHly-0008W3-Gn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:58:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHlf-0006Vk-43; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:57:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHld-0006VM-5e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:57:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHlb-000543-Gl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:57:56 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE27C24016A for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:57:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1672415873; bh=mi6uRMRjtkbX04gTn46HsDzFFUGS8hJCElLSZVArNwg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=VT6NL1G4q/LWcz7xN8l6n1vAlQVmW7f/tm4tKDdDklLP0TZdOiXvu5ipRnU0hQg0B OFSvLC3I3xDXX0GCjZdzJu1vyhe2Ujn1E1B/pBueNykyswo8mu3BaWU5jBSkWgH3Qn gLguynLggnDziRPXe2fXd8hVd5HKsIEzjWnbmZ8jNIXboNosNq4e/U5sNa83zdPZHW 4A13L/oyrvJW0x00WJYn8Q5/Ow/Yhcn6FtNJOY+Sj2fcGyo0J4Dg4gQIEU8oiW3hVj m7nZ3r/BIbVLHvWPjXzTuxU/8sIPtFB5mgY4WOOC6aHQsKXrpIkdPhFiFBLTkmeoUy fQXtTfivIOXrg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Nk8zj3Kb4z6tn8; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:57:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83tu1c6got.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 30 Dec 2022 17:42:58 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:302122 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Yuan Fu >> >> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:02:37 +0000 >> >> Yes, I do understand this point, yet my impression has been that this >> was not always necessary. The relative complexity of cc-mode might >> necessitate a separate mode, but I don't see why that should be the rule >> instead of an exception? > > CC Mode means C, C++, and Java already. If these 3 are separate > modes, how to make your proposal work for them and for the others as > well, in a way that is (1) convenient and easily understood by users, > and (2) simple and safe enough to implement so that we don't > inadvertently screw existing modes? In some other response I have said that cc-mode seems too complicated for now. I agree that it is a better approach to take some time and develop the right infrastructure going forward towards Emacs 30. But would this mean that the "...-ts-mode"s are to be regarded as experimental demonstrations?