On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 5:14 PM Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
> Hello, João.

> > Regarding slowdown, we have to check by how much.  Regarding the
> > pertinence of the modificaiton, there are mode-specific modifications
> > with (IMO much worse) backward-incompatible behaviour being made to
> > modes like to c-mode to circumvent precisely this problem.
> No.

You're right. I never really understood _your_ motivation for it.  Of
all its serious drawbacks, the only positive effect that others --
indeed not you -- effectively pointed out is that it partially solves
the "flashing" or "blinking" problem for users who don't use
electric-pair-mode, smartparens, or similar solutions.  In contrast,
your explanations for that particular feature, which conflated syntax
and font-lock considerations, were always nonsensical to me.  With all
sincerity, whenever I tried to follow your logic I came to a insoluble
contradiction.  Alas, I'm afraid my ability to follow the same arguments
hasn't evolved much in the meantime, and so I very much wish not to
rehash that discussion.

Anyway, after recognizing the legitimacy of the aforementioned
"flashing" problem (which, again, I avoid with electric-pair-mode), I
took up a stuggestion by Stefan for an alternative way to solve that
problem.  So that there would be less justification to the
behaviour-breaking changes to CC Mode, or at least so that other mode
authors aren't encouraged to replicate your approach, that I personally
consider harmful.

João