From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is there any elisp functions to tell whether the cursor is in a comment block? Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:19:26 +0200 Message-ID: <487D226E.7040207@gmail.com> References: <87tzetis7w.fsf@DEBLAP1.BeNet> <71bcf427-442c-45b8-95d6-5f8289c85297@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <87iqv8sdyi.fsf@DEBLAP1.BeNet> <87mykk1b1r.fsf@DEBLAP1.BeNet><487BDF2F.8010202@gmail.com> <487C526A.6010806@gmail.com> <003201c8e685$3d7f9770$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <487D0D8B.7050907@gmail.com> <001c01c8e6c0$bd3203a0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <487D17E3.3020803@gmail.com> <002601c8e6c7$077ad530$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216160456 16160 80.91.229.12 (15 Jul 2008 22:20:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:20:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Tom Tromey' , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 16 00:21:42 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KIstp-0004dz-Nw for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:21:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35617 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KIssx-00024E-7C for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:20:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KIssf-000243-L2 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:20:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KIsse-00023o-26 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:20:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60202 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KIssd-00023k-Tq for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:20:19 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:33267) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KIssd-0007ro-Q8 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:20:20 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-145-59.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.59]:64711 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KIsrp-0005pH-8I; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:19:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <002601c8e6c7$077ad530$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080712-0, 2008-07-12), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.145.59 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KIsrp-0005pH-8I. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KIsrp-0005pH-8I 45933b0133259ab68966e7e9a660d332 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:55612 Archived-At: Drew Adams wrote: >> I would suggest a shorter version of the compatibility line, like >> ;; Compatibility: Emacs=20.*,21.*,22.* XEmacs=unknown > ... > That kind of thing is not much of a problem if it is only people that read a > Compatibility field. But if tools do that, then there would need to be a > well-defined syntax to communicate the various possibilities unambiguously. Sure. > `unknown' doesn't seem useful to me. But how should absence be interpreted, in > general: as unknown or incompatible? Maybe ;; Compatible: Emacs=21.*,22.* ;; Incompatible: Emacs=20.*, XEmacs And absence == unknown. >> I would also suggest adding this information to all elisp files on >> EmacsWiki. Perhaps this can be done automatically > > That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I think you're asking for trouble, > here. > >> using the dates the files where added > > That's definitely a bad idea, IMO - no necessary relation. > >> and assuming the files only works for the >> then current released version of Emacs? > > Bad assumption. And what is the "current released version" - moving > target/interpretation. > > I would advise against trying to guess compatibility like that. Let library > authors determine and specify the compatibilities explicitly. Else assume > nothing. I have asked for that before, but nothing happened. That means that the burden is now on the users. Maybe something like this can be used then: 1) Announce that an automatic change as above will be made unless package authors (or someone else) adds the Compatible label. 2) Do the automatic change after some weeks.