Re: Mysterious fontification/C++ context issue - Patch for beginning-of-defun-raw.

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> Hi, Mr. Kastrup,
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 01:14:50PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>> > The existence (up until a few days ago) of the open paren in C0 in
>> > syntax.c, of course.
>
>> > If these things slip unnoticed past Emacs hackers for years, what hope
>> > is there for ordinary programmers?
>
> [ .... ]

Explanation conveniently snipped.

>> What you call "evidence" is, in my book, a very flimsy excuse for
>> the same.
>
> OK, I admit it.  I swallowd the bait, allowed myself to be set up as a
> straw man, and now you've knocked me down.  Are you happy now?

Ad hominem attacks don't make for a reasonable argument, either.  I'd
be happier if you did not feel the necessity to dilute your point with
hyperbole all the time.  It is tiresome to have to pick out the actual
facts and arguments from all that partly flippant verbiage that
carries across the notion that whoever disagrees with your assessment
must be wrong to start with.

You are trying to argue for a last-minute change far into the pretest,
one that has caused problems for people and does not seem easy to get
correct.  So we need really compelling reasons, and I have not seen
them, even though you act as if anybody with half a brain should
immediately recognize them.

I am all for good font-locking and movement commands, but one needs to
keep the associated cost in speed, stability, and release impact in
perspective and balance with the expected problems.  It is something
which I am trying to do in a manner I feel appropriate for a
conscientious developer.  I don't think that my different assessment
should single me out as a target for personal enmity.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum