From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Lifting all buffer restrictions in indentation functions Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 10:24:55 +0200 Message-ID: <83mv2sux48.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83wp1xupqs.fsf@gnu.org> <83shclugwo.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1512807926 3770 195.159.176.226 (9 Dec 2017 08:25:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 08:25:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 09 09:25:20 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 1eNaRj-0000mB-7N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 09:25:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40365 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNaRq-00012s-G1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:25:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40843) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNaRj-00011r-2x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:25:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNaRe-0000UO-5q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:25:19 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58166) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNaRe-0000U5-1l; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:25:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4214 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eNaRd-00035r-1D; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:25:13 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:47:44 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:220808 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:47:44 -0500 > > So it sounds highly hypothetical, and it's not clear if would be more > often right or more often wrong in those hypothetical cases. It _is_ hypothetical. The question that bothers me is specifically whether we should flatly disallow those hypothetical cases, just because we "cannot imagine" them. My experience with Emacs development is that everything I thought was unimaginable someone somewhere imagined it and wanted it to be possible, as long as that made sense in their particular application.