From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20170203172952.GC2250@acm> References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <83lgtouxpf.fsf@gnu.org> <20170202215154.GB2505@acm> <83h94bvhzw.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486143077 10769 195.159.176.226 (3 Feb 2017 17:31:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:31:17 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 03 18:31:12 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cZhhY-0002Pm-HG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:31:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36067 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZhhY-0007Eh-Qk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:31:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36885) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZhgf-0006d7-7Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:30:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZhga-0003tU-8O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:30:17 -0500 Original-Received: from ocolin.muc.de ([193.149.48.4]:17791 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZhga-0003sz-3N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:30:12 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 91990 invoked by uid 3782); 3 Feb 2017 17:30:10 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548C746C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.140.116.108]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:30:09 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 2451 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Feb 2017 17:29:52 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83h94bvhzw.fsf@gnu.org> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.4 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:211940 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 09:41:23 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:51:54 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > I say there's too much resistance to doing that from people whose > > > opinions I respect and trust. Each time this issue comes up, I see > > > that resistance being expressed again. > > Primarily from Stefan. > Not only Stefan. Also Dmitry. I would hope that the substance of these objections would carry more weight than their authorship. > > > I hope it's possible to find some kind of compromise or a different > > > solution that leaves people less unhappy. > > Compromise with what? > With the objections, ideas, and suggestions expressed in those > discussions. With all due respect, none of these objections and ideas leave room for compromise. comment-cache scans comments forwards, the "alternative patch" Dmitry talks about tries to scan them backwards. Where is the scope for compromise? The objectors do not seem to want compromise - they want comment-cache to be wholly abandoned. They object to it for reasons I don't understand, despite the fact that it elegantly solves a long standing problem that continues to cause pain on a frequent basis. If you (or anybody else) could summarize what these objections are, I'd be very grateful. Note that there has been NO constructive criticism of comment-cache. Nobody is pointing out problems it causes or might cause. Nobody has looked at the source code to point out potential difficulties or places where improvements might be made. Instead, we have .... And while this is going on, I'm having to deal with perhaps one or two of these bugs a year in CC Mode, which are time consuming, demoralising and embarrassing to have to explain to the OPs. Emacs should be able to handle parentheses in comments. What is the problem with comment-cache? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).