From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Major modes using `widen' is a good, even essential, programming practice. Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2022 20:46:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6ae35c9306ade07b4c45@heytings.org> <6ae35c93060632b84285@heytings.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1005"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 07 22:47:22 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 1oKnBC-00007j-8Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 07 Aug 2022 22:47:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60548 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oKnBB-0006p9-0x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 07 Aug 2022 16:47:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48140) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oKnAR-00068t-Ec for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Aug 2022 16:46:35 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:39460 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oKnAP-0002WS-D6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Aug 2022 16:46:35 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 26734 invoked by uid 3782); 7 Aug 2022 20:46:18 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2e5d5157.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.81.87]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Aug 2022 22:46:18 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 8258 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Aug 2022 20:46:17 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6ae35c93060632b84285@heytings.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:293234 Archived-At: Hello, Gregory. On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 20:17:26 +0000, Gregory Heytings wrote: > >> It is wrong that "arbitrary Lisp can be executed through > >> fontification-functions", as you said earlier. > > It is not wrong. [...] > >> A function called from fontification-functions isn't supposed to > >> download a file, or to send an email, or to change a user option, or to > >> remove or create a file, or to remove or insert text in the buffer, or > >> to kill Emacs or a frame or a window or the current buffer, or to > >> change the window layout, and so on and so forth. > > That doesn't deserve a reply, so won't be getting one. > Yet the above are all perfectly legitimate examples of "arbitrary Lisp". > So I take it that in fact you agree that it is wrong that "arbitrary Lisp > can be executed through fontification-functions". You can take no such thing. > Neither the deliberately extreme examples above, nor anything else > that is outside of the scope of the API contract. I challenged you to state what you think this API contract consists of. You seem unable to meet this challenge. So I take it that in fact you agree there is no such thing as this "API contract". > Code executed through fontification-functions should do what it was > designed to do, and only that, otherwise it breaks the API contract. Yet you are unable to state precisely what this "designed to do" is. This "API contract" is a mythological creature. We've already established, in conversation with Eli, that widening is routinely done by functions on fontification-functions, and arbitrary buffer positions are accessed. If you look closely at CC Mode's use of font locking you'll see that it font locks, and nothing else. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).