From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master c4151eb: Improve the optional translation of quotes Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:24:34 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <558A3F12.3080005@cs.ucla.edu> References: <20150619073901.5856.32718@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <55870BD2.6040706@yandex.ru> <558716E9.30903@cs.ucla.edu> <55871721.5060709@yandex.ru> <55871883.7080600@cs.ucla.edu> <55871E96.2020506@yandex.ru> <558722C0.5040702@cs.ucla.edu> <55874E55.4020501@yandex.ru> <5587B029.5000503@cs.ucla.edu> <55882522.3030305@yandex.ru> <5588F071.7030501@cs.ucla.edu> <55893B2D.40506@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1435123502 13080 80.91.229.3 (24 Jun 2015 05:25:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 05:25:02 +0000 (UTC) To: Dmitry Gutov , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 24 07:24:48 2015 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 1Z7dB0-0005Nq-UN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:24:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48626 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7dB0-0004kc-43 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:24:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48096) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7dAw-0004kW-Sq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:24:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7dAr-0001ep-6U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:24:42 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:41573) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7dAr-0001eR-1e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:24:37 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8BC16083F; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id kl5RSRxUTx2y; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA956160844; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:24:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id vg6-a42XKmWk; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-100-32-155-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [100.32.155.148]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A65021601A5; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:24:34 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 In-Reply-To: <55893B2D.40506@yandex.ru> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:187462 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov wrote: > I gave you a recipe for a fix in > http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20385#292, and it worked fine for > me locally. (I thought I've also sent a patch, but apparently not). > > So if you had trouble applying that, maybe you should've asked for the proper > patch instead of rushing the other way. As I mentioned earlier I never fully understood the font-lock proposal. I could not easily decipher most of the abovementioned message. Luckily, though, the abovementioned message briefly mentioned not using font-locking and said of it "...but indeed, this approach could be the simpler one." -- an assessmeent that seemed sound to me -- and so I took the simpler approach.