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: [Emacs-diffs] scratch/widen-less a4ba846: Replace prog-widen with consolidating widen calls Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:18:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20171203121854.GA5531@ACM> References: <20171130214621.GA22157@ACM> <27985594-3bb4-ce88-8928-2ccfeac13eae@yandex.ru> <20171201154913.GB3840@ACM> <1e542021-e389-cca4-6acd-349efddb2652@yandex.ru> <20171201223529.GG3840@ACM> <4a94ec5c-efdd-50f1-ff4d-277f5f45c2df@yandex.ru> <20171202202855.GA22133@ACM> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1512303933 17225 195.159.176.226 (3 Dec 2017 12:25:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:25:33 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Cc: Tom Tromey , Vitalie Spinu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 03 13:25:29 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 1eLTKp-0003yS-Fy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:25:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38652 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLTKt-0007Nx-MF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 07:25:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38407) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLTKI-0007Nc-Ha for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 07:24:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLTKE-0006pR-DI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 07:24:54 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:14441 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLTKE-0006o5-17 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 07:24:50 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 88652 invoked by uid 3782); 3 Dec 2017 12:24:47 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548C6938.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.140.105.56]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:24:46 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5836 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Dec 2017 12:18:54 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 193.149.48.1 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:220648 Archived-At: Hello, Stefan. On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 19:03:44 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > (parse-partial-sexp 1 n) > > . I am proposing extending this property for buffers with several > > modes and several syntax tables. Nothing more, nothing less. > That would potentially solve some percentage of the problems with > MMM support. But what about the rest? They would clearly need other work doing on them. Richard suggested building something similar to narrowing for the excusive use of MMM. > > syntax-propertize is your way of doing things, so naturally you want it > > to become a "standard". > I don't actually care whether the standard is my standard or not. > What I wanted was *a* standard. Standards are created by like-minded experts coming together, thrashing things out, and finally agreeing on some reasonable set of compromises; not by a lone hacker, no matter how expert, throwing something together in his bedroom. > > However it is not the only way of doing things, > > and is suboptimal in several respects. > All standards are suboptimal. You seem to be implying that all standards are suboptimal, therefore any standard is as good as any other. That is palpably false. > The reason people use them is because the existence of a standard > makes other things possible. Not really. At least, this particular standard (if such it be), syntax-propertize, shuts off useful, even essential, possibilities. It is also based on syntax-ppss, which we recently agreed needed replacing with something which does the right job. The way you want to restrict the use of the syntax-table text property is like having a screw driver, and only being permitted to turn it clockwise. That text property is a very useful general purpose tool, something you seem to want to do away with. > > When designing syntax-propertize, with whom did you discuss the > > technical aspects? > My cat. Then I (cause at that point my cat couldn't be bothered to > follow me to the desk) tried what we both thought might work, then > I applied it to more modes, and a few years later it ends up working in > *all* major modes I know (including CC-mode, tho I haven't bothered to > make it robust enough to have a patch, knowing that you're never going > to accept such a patch in CC-mode, even though it's mostly just throwing > away code). It may be possible to rebuild CC Mode to conform to this "standard", but it would be a lot of work, the "standard" would need enhancements[*], CC Mode would run more slowly, and its users wouldn't see any benefit. [*] What I'm thinking of, in particular, is after buffer changes, the syntax-propertize mechanism doesn't amend the syntax-table text properties adquately. > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).