Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Wilfred Hughes]

I've noticed the following line in files.el:

("\\.ml\\'" . lisp-mode)

This seems strange to me: .ml files are generally ML or Ocaml. Git
history says this line was added to Emacs in 1992 in commit
7b3f3dc2bba80d, but that commit doesn't suggest why this association
was added.

I'm not aware of any lisp file formats that use *.ml files, and
lisp-mode is not well suited for editing ML-family code.

Does anyone object to me removing it? If I don't hear back I'll remove
it in a few days.

Thanks
Wilfred

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Andreas Schwab]

On Jun 24 2018, Wilfred Hughes <me@wilfred.me.uk> wrote:

> I'm not aware of any lisp file formats that use *.ml files,

Perhaps Mocklisp.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Alexis]

Wilfred Hughes <me@wilfred.me.uk> writes:

> I've noticed the following line in files.el:
>
> ("\\.ml\\'" . lisp-mode)
>
> This seems strange to me: .ml files are generally ML or 
> Ocaml. Git
> history says this line was added to Emacs in 1992 in commit
> 7b3f3dc2bba80d, but that commit doesn't suggest why this 
> association
> was added.
>
> I'm not aware of any lisp file formats that use *.ml files, and
> lisp-mode is not well suited for editing ML-family code.

Hmm, were MacLisp source files ever given a .ml extension?

(Yes, i would assume a .ml file was ML-family source, myself ....)


Alexis.

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Adam Sampson]

Wilfred Hughes <me@wilfred.me.uk> writes:

> I'm not aware of any lisp file formats that use *.ml files,

Gosling/Unipress Emacs used .ml for Mocklisp files. It's probably older
than 1992 -- a quick hunt through the utzoo Usenet archive found an
example GNU Emacs auto-mode-alist from 1985 with that entry (in
Message-ID: <34300005@waltz>).

I think it's probably safe to say there are more users of OCaml than
Gosling Emacs around these days. ;-)

-- 
Adam Sampson <ats@offog.org>                         <http://offog.org/>

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

GNU Emacs did support Mocklisp (by translation and emulation) for a
few years in the 1980s.  I hope and expect nobody uses it any more.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Paul Eggert]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> GNU Emacs did support Mocklisp (by translation and emulation) for a
> few years in the 1980s.  I hope and expect nobody uses it any more.

Yes, it would be helpful if .ml were to default to a mode useful for editing ML 
code. I think the most commonly-used Elisp code for that is Tuareg Mode, which 
is GPL'ed; how about if we default to that? See:

https://github.com/ocaml/tuareg

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Andreas Röhler]

On 24.06.2018 22:55, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
>> GNU Emacs did support Mocklisp (by translation and emulation) for a
>> few years in the 1980s.  I hope and expect nobody uses it any more.
> 
> Yes, it would be helpful if .ml were to default to a mode useful for 
> editing ML code. I think the most commonly-used Elisp code for that is 
> Tuareg Mode, which is GPL'ed; how about if we default to that? See:
> 
> https://github.com/ocaml/tuareg
> 

What about https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/sml-mode.html?

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Andreas Röhler]

On 25.06.2018 12:00, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24.06.2018 22:55, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>>> GNU Emacs did support Mocklisp (by translation and emulation) for a
>>> few years in the 1980s.  I hope and expect nobody uses it any more.
>>
>> Yes, it would be helpful if .ml were to default to a mode useful for 
>> editing ML code. I think the most commonly-used Elisp code for that is 
>> Tuareg Mode, which is GPL'ed; how about if we default to that? See:
>>
>> https://github.com/ocaml/tuareg
>>
>
> What about https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/sml-mode.html?
> 

Hmm, that's .sml for Standard ML
Sorry for the noise.

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Perry E. Metzger]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:55:10 -0700 Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> > GNU Emacs did support Mocklisp (by translation and emulation) for
> > a few years in the 1980s.  I hope and expect nobody uses it any
> > more.  
> 
> Yes, it would be helpful if .ml were to default to a mode useful
> for editing ML code. I think the most commonly-used Elisp code for
> that is Tuareg Mode, which is GPL'ed; how about if we default to
> that? See:
> 
> https://github.com/ocaml/tuareg
> 

I believe that the bulk of people who edit files ending in .ml are
using Tuareg mode for it (that is to say, I believe that OCaml is
more popular than SML, and that Tuareg mode is the usually used mode
for that.)

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com

Re: Why is .ml associated with lisp-mode in auto-mode-alist?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Wilfred Hughes <me@wilfred.me.uk>
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 12:28:25 +0100
> 
> I've noticed the following line in files.el:
> 
> ("\\.ml\\'" . lisp-mode)
> 
> This seems strange to me: .ml files are generally ML or Ocaml. Git
> history says this line was added to Emacs in 1992 in commit
> 7b3f3dc2bba80d, but that commit doesn't suggest why this association
> was added.
> 
> I'm not aware of any lisp file formats that use *.ml files, and
> lisp-mode is not well suited for editing ML-family code.

As others pointed out, it's for Mocklisp.  See

  http://www.linuxmisc.com/10-unix-questions/e10216400ac9037d.htm

> Does anyone object to me removing it? If I don't hear back I'll remove
> it in a few days.

I'm not sure I understand: you want to remove that association without
replacing it with any other mode?  Why is that a good idea?  (I could
understand if you were suggesting to replace lisp-mode by something
else, but removing this with no replacement just means users will have
to customize their Emacs anyway, so we will not gain anything in terms
of usability OOTB.  Or am I missing something?

Thanks.