Re: Extending define-derived-mode

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:

> When we were adding tree-sitter modes a couple of month ago, it was
> clear that the current major mode model needs some upgrade, I’d like
> to discuss the things we need and how can we address them.

Perhaps this is a stupid suggestion (since I am permanently behind on
developments wrt. tree-sitter), but might it be that the notions of
"major modes" just aren't strong enough of an abstraction to talk about
languages?  Just like we have user options that have a relation to
regular variables, wouldn't it make sense to provide something like
"language modes" that would provide a higher-level and a more
specialised vocabulary.

This might also tie into the issue of inconsistent bindings for
semantically "analogous" operations between major modes (compiling,
opening a REPL, requesting documentation, etc.) or the issues of
duplicate configurations options that all raise the barrier when trying
out a new major mode or switching between languages.