From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: enriched-mode and switching major modes. Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:36:20 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <01c4a31d$Blat.v2.2.2$ef362a60@zahav.net.il> References: <200409042358.i84Nwjt19152@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <01c49c75$Blat.v2.2.2$7a37cb00@zahav.net.il> <01c49d70$Blat.v2.2.2$f7cfb860@zahav.net.il> <01c49da7$Blat.v2.2.2$cd5f7160@zahav.net.il> <01c49dc6$Blat.v2.2.2$3b624d40@zahav.net.il> <01c4a225$Blat.v2.2.2$afcaa700@zahav.net.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096130369 17297 80.91.229.6 (25 Sep 2004 16:39:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: boris@gnu.org, alex@emacswiki.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 25 18:39:19 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CBFZv-00031A-00 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:39:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CBFg2-0005jG-De for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:45:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CBFfj-0005ZY-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:45:20 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CBFfg-0005Yb-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:45:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CBFfg-0005YV-KG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:45:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.24] (helo=legolas.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CBFZN-000740-RY; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:38:46 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretski ([80.230.143.223]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CRA29598 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:38:42 +0200 (IST) Original-To: Oliver Scholz X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.2.2 In-reply-to: (message from Oliver Scholz on Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:51:56 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27564 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27564 > From: Oliver Scholz > Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:51:56 +0200 > Cc: boris@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, alex@emacswiki.org > > But I have to start somewhere. The tree interface to this kind of > documents is well known and tested in practice. Almost every > specification talks about trees. So if there are no principal > objections to improving Emacs to better work with trees-in-a-buffer in > the long run, I think that I fare better by assuming a tree-interface. I simply didn't understand why you converged on the tree right from the beginning. I thought that the specification of the data structure might benefit from some hind-sight discussion, since (at least in my experience) trees are not very often used in ELisp code, oprobably for a good reason.