From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Liu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 b6d6304: Comment on last change to define-derived-mode Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:41:59 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20160301035146.26012.60163@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <0ff1a53d-bbdf-7393-5462-516c89a582d8@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457188971 28468 80.91.229.3 (5 Mar 2016 14:42:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:42:51 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 05 15:42:37 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1acDPg-0003P5-I4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:42:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46769 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acDPf-0004RB-Ue for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:42:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35819) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acDPS-0004R3-Ex for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:42:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acDPN-0007Iv-FJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:42:22 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:48004) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acDPN-0007I6-8E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:42:17 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1acDPH-00039X-AX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:42:12 +0100 Original-Received: from 221.222.150.241 ([221.222.150.241]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:42:11 +0100 Original-Received: from sdl.web by 221.222.150.241 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:42:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 19 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 221.222.150.241 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACgAAAAoBAMAAAB+0KVeAAAAGFBMVEUzRVhbQj4eZqO6SjnT eWpxnMetm5b6/PmidmqrAAAAAWJLR0QAiAUdSAAAAAlwSFlzAAALEwAACxMBAJqcGAAAAAd0SU1F B9cBBwMLBfKABCMAAAFoSURBVCjPtZI9a8MwEIaFoc7aYDdelQMna0Em3tsSr0XUeE2Q6a22a+v+ fk8fSSBkbDUI6dHpfe9OEvRgiD+ApqKPJgJeB6iUUXWESjUe/ig38AJrhqqvaU2nTIXbNvOQ40fe qdry4kyGoVWsfCQalXpHnJGM01wjWdYbMlXNFdsZDO69m9aqNqxEJqTEgbM5OF7wlEfIoll1Ked4 LbM5X2EdILLokEdmI8z7g5cKED0cuTC930TYhy7ZDekkXVGw/L60TguJePPxcJF48lpsSUWEA/Ju jGFNgJOXc4Hz7TmAdBeu5Ve4AEjOi2/2jfd3cAJZ+IbNrvdjgBZY01b+HTuG3cLws6BJZqVOj/pp T0OqVwx3rFq+QmJwx3loK5JSLEhDIt62+mtC2C+SrAUxEbV6C6v2BRbd6pILBKFpepKZJHgGgrKF sptSUUoczpwg2pQ7ZH1tgs0ou/917mzz6Cs2//C978cv5l07L02orIEAAAAASUVORK5CYII= User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.92 (OS X 10.11.3) Cancel-Lock: sha1:/dWN30KJ0ZiKcQtDf1E3kjt6Qxs= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:200949 Archived-At: On 2016-03-05 15:32 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > Then we can consider them a separate argument. Since it's not > delimited with parens, what better way to emphasize it than to put it > on a separate line? So what's your point of bringing up semantics in the first place? I am totally lost. >> They actually affect how code is generated. The BODY has at most 3 >> semantic parts: DOC, KEYWORDS and BODY2. The first 2 are optional. My >> style is not bizarre and to my eye make the code clear. Everyone has >> own lisp style and we should do our best to respect them. > > Not if we lose out in functionality in other places Still missing the point. I don't mind if you exert some style in a new macro. But this is a macro that has been there since at least 22.1. Leo