From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: end-of-defun is fubsr. Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:00:50 +0000 Message-ID: <20090215220050.GA3905@muc.de> References: <20090213110819.GA2975@muc.de> <20090213164210.GC2975@muc.de> <20090213185756.GD2975@muc.de> <20090214180030.GA4679@muc.de> <20090214232535.GA3623@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1234734016 23688 80.91.229.12 (15 Feb 2009 21:40:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:40:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6hler?= , Miles Bader To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 15 22:41:31 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LYojv-0004Hd-JL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:41:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47973 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LYoib-0006TW-E8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:40:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LYoiX-0006TN-Fw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:40:01 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LYoiU-0006SD-VV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:40:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50620 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LYoiU-0006SA-RF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:39:58 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:2939 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LYoiU-0003w6-9m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:39:58 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 16893 invoked by uid 3782); 15 Feb 2009 21:39:50 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E53F73.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.63.115]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:39:46 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 4867 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Feb 2009 22:00:50 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:109092 Archived-At: On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 02:26:57PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> I prefer the current text. > > Was my patch really that bad? > I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying that I find it less good than the > current text. Most of the differences are nitpicks on which > we disagree for reasons explained over and over in this thread. The current text doesn't specify an EOD-F sufficiently to enable a major mode writer to construct one. He is forced to read the source in lisp.el and work it out for himself. This is a Bad Thing. > > Look, I'm as sick of all this as you must be. > AFAIK the only thing still missing is the addition of ARG to > EOD-function, which is something I prefer to postpone because it's not > a bug fix and we're in pretest. There's a lot more "missing" than that. With all due respect, a change this big should have been discussed on emacs-devel long before we got to the pretest. The only discussion I think there's been so far was in the thread "Useless change in lisp.el?" started by Andreas Röhler in November 2007. Your verdict at the time was, and I quote: "Rather than argue abuot the change itself, just give us some use case where the new behavior is problematic." We have now seen such a use case, if not two or three. Why did this change not get proper discussion on emacs-devel? Or did I miss it? I'd disagree with you about the bug fixness of the thing, but the last thing we need to do is squabble about what words mean. The effort needed to fix it now is of a lesser order of magnitude than what will be needed later if the current implementation is released in Emacs 23. In fact, the effort to fix it now is probably less than what the two of us have just spent composing emails on the topic. A suggestion: Let's just revert to the Emacs 22 code and documentation. That was at least stable and consistent, and reverting won't introduce new problems. The way things are at the moment will introduce new problems for people outside the core Emacs team. It has already done so for people inside the team. If we release with lisp.el the way it currently is in the CVS, the problems it will cause will be unfixable in the future, or at least fixable only with an inordinate degree of uncreative effort. I suspect a lot of major mode maintainers just won't bother. Then we can discuss things properly and fix them properly for Emacs 24. > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).