From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: font-lock-syntactic-keywords obsolet? Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:17:53 +0300 Message-ID: <05bee3a5-67c7-3219-7a75-6ca3f743444e@yandex.ru> References: <20160619171531.GH5875@acm.fritz.box> <751427e7-f305-7790-99f5-dea230d8e6c4@yandex.ru> <20160620105850.GB3166@acm.fritz.box> <23d7473e-50da-b6dc-17a7-1fec4aad6bfa@yandex.ru> <20160620152535.GB2192@acm.fritz.box> <076b7311-ad16-4913-b0ec-fc73ea4550a1@yandex.ru> <6e028101-2f0f-28c8-2762-14fa91087fcc@yandex.ru> <20160621152653.GC3177@acm.fritz.box> <2461a96d-d5b0-f2ee-8668-920ddc86f5f5@yandex.ru> <20160621210517.GD3177@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1466543937 14714 80.91.229.3 (21 Jun 2016 21:18:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:18:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Noam Postavsky , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 21 23:18:48 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 1bFT4H-0001Hn-W1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:18:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54313 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bFT4G-0004iF-Dz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:18:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52970) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bFT3Z-0004TW-Mb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:18:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bFT3U-0003Nl-O1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:18:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]:35080) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bFT3U-0003NY-Fx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:17:56 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l188so43426259lfe.2 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:17:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wr3XAE60ob1Dgu1Y1GZhBYkrtI+HpLKJsF6/vfPfU4w=; b=eJnqh8KRNkFSTFs4cPmUmEiZs5P+xMeawaZWsL/JpLkuOgky71LP1Jp4EhObQccKYC gyMrVjLhnBvfS2xlA8DmfHaOR6OP6j33Sz+3qE3DxozZH+yV8uhYHNTZvZFpE2MAQ3zE gFlCTPh+7BR5Cv38hOMw5ij6euchDGI2nYvADi1mT9aaZEs3O2CWak7ISpFqQI107qF4 KKi+8kGF1oBM9LBc2mhW+UK+goHQCy5uSr00ooESa29xKCDJPjaXvwNXrn0zKSfp9SAx ltPiTlVqDbEd9FmGl4aj7fNxjrGqm9fg+/MZjEKNi+S+nO5o8/82PfdS6jEZ5AeUX7aO sV6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wr3XAE60ob1Dgu1Y1GZhBYkrtI+HpLKJsF6/vfPfU4w=; b=kUjmLb35JXdbiUoyWtriNnrnbDdB5HlGJdQNukaE85yhQaWV3GM9Ehhm7AozCHoHi2 GyILEb/ecxbZO6WN2QRbhfjeWqEWPtwE7mXHpbV44ZGMNBCEZju+ybC8C+LwccUj6rHO 0mM75ydTMJ2skCMIjN0+VZ+QEQj3eNFSy7czN+qN9vJ/SkAnwmvsrhLBnPJJa5xaSlhu Jaq+d/u19dmxuYk3Ydiva260Q0HDR/VM561YNViIpD/8jVV4Rz0sRMmJFxQDlaWvi31Q jsXN96Bn4ueTLhb1Omq0wg8kwGm87ssO+LDKqdIkauSrnbRE2CCGAYZAQjkUMD5svu0R 70Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKZwo5Yg5NGzoQsyBdZkAb/2JZEKpoeVlnUUMO84YfQR0HyAatJqQqXE+aIwVdH8A== X-Received: by 10.194.88.106 with SMTP id bf10mr16433897wjb.37.1466543875480; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([185.105.173.135]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id yr4sm59183002wjc.18.2016.06.21.14.17.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:17:54 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2 In-Reply-To: <20160621210517.GD3177@acm.fritz.box> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::236 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:204657 Archived-At: On 06/22/2016 12:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > What I object to is you trying > to dictate to the Emacs community that they are only to be allowed to > handle syntax-table text properties in your favoured manner. I'm not doing that. Again: please go on with doing whatever you wish in CC Mode. > There is, at the very least an implication there, that you consider > "syntax-ppss users" in some way privileged, in that other Emacs > developers must constrain their development strategies to fit in with > the desires and defficiencies of these "syntax-ppss users". Only when you try to change how Emacs primitives work. Then yes, you damn better consider the existing facilities and their users. I'm again referring to comment-cache here and your proposed implementation. > I say that it is up to the "syntax-ppss users" to keep their software > compatible with Emacs, not the other way around. By the same reasoning, you could push for renaming `car' into `cr' for efficiency reasons, without an alias, and demand that all other users adapt to keep their code compatible. That's not how Emacs works, and you know it. > They have no right to > impose constraints on other developers, certainly not on how they will > manipulate syntax-table text properties. That sounds like a different discussion. > I'm not sure how you imagine that implementing > something in CC Mode somehow "ignores the needs of the rest of the > modes". It does not while it stays in CC Mode. Or, if extracted from it, remains fully optional. >> That's not true. You've critiqued it a lot (does that not count as >> persuading to abandon?), .... > > No, it doesn't. It's technical discussion leading to greater > understanding on both sides. I really hope it does.