From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Multiple major modes Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:31:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: <466E7A93.3050705@gmail.com> <466E81AA.3030202@gnu.org> <466E9822.2050508@gmail.com> <466EAB9D.9020408@gnu.org> <466EEA71.2070700@gmail.com> <200706122014.l5CKEKV1021902@projectile.siege-engine.com> <200706190209.l5J29Csr010302@projectile.siege-engine.com> <200706251404.l5PE4dgc011720@projectile.siege-engine.com> <18059.52286.486779.619378@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1183599422 16272 80.91.229.12 (5 Jul 2007 01:37:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lennart.borgman@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, eric@siege-engine.com, jasonr@gnu.org, sdl.web@gmail.com To: raman@users.sf.net Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 05 03:36:59 2007 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I6GHC-0005GV-L2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 03:36:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6GHC-0002ob-70 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:36:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I6GBs-0006Gz-U3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:31:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I6GBr-0006Fq-9D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:31:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6GBr-0006Fk-0r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:31:27 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I6GBq-00047f-KC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:31:26 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I6GBq-0006ii-3i; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:31:26 -0400 In-reply-to: <18059.52286.486779.619378@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (raman@users.sf.net) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:74324 Archived-At: For the record, advice does update the function documentation, assuming one documents the advice. It doesn't update the source code of the function definition, which is the main thing that someone debugging will look at. This suggests an idea to me. Maybe Emacs could highlight the function definition somehow, to indicate that the function has been advised. That might solve the problem that makes advising bad for debugging. Would someone like to try it? To be sure whether it solves that problem, we would have to try it for a while, and see the results. We can't assume this a priori.