From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question) Date: 23 Jul 2003 16:36:04 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200307141341.h6EDfxEd006523@rum.cs.yale.edu> <84wuei7jye.fsf_-_@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <200307211451.h6LEpJJH022123@rum.cs.yale.edu> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1058945829 8310 80.91.224.249 (23 Jul 2003 07:37:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kai.grossjohann@gmx.net, monnier+gnu/emacs@cs.yale.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 23 09:37:04 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19fEBM-00029X-00 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:37:04 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19fESs-00040O-00 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:55:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fEC9-00025G-RA for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:37:53 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19fEBl-0001wg-P9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:37:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19fEBc-0001bN-0X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:37:20 -0400 Original-Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([210.143.35.52]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fEAp-0001Qw-Mi; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:36:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp (mailgate53.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.192]) by TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id h6N7a7d29711; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:36:07 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mailsv5.nec.co.jp (mailgate52.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.191]) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id h6N7a6h14991; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:36:06 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from edtmg02.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.26.16.202]) by mailsv5.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILSV-NEC) with ESMTP id h6N7a6g09263; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:36:06 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edtmg02.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.9.3p2+3.2W/3.7W_EDC_Ver.1.0) with ESMTP id QAA06952; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:36:05 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (mcspd15 [10.30.114.174]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.8/8.12.8/EDcg v2.01-mc/1046780839) with ESMTP id h6N7a4NH013203; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:36:05 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 83958372A; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:36:04 +0900 (JST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 24 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:15678 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:15678 Richard Stallman writes: > (defalias 'define-major-mode 'define-derived-mode) > > The two macros should not have the same calling convention. > define-major-mode should not have a parent argument. Why? It's certainly the case that some major-modes have `parent' modes, and some don't; really, the fact that they're major modes seems far more significant than that particular detail, so I'd think it would be _good_ that they use the same macro, as long as: (1) Its name is equally applicable in either case, and emphasizes what's important (that they're major modes); `define-derived-mode' falls down here because it emphasizes something that's (IMHO) a minor detail in the derived case, and arguably _false_ in the non-derived case. `define-major-mode' has neither of these problems. (2) Using the same macro for both is not inconvenient for either case; personally I think an extra `nil' is not much of an inconvenience... -Miles -- "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." Mahatma Ghandi