From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] comment-cache 223d16f 2/3: Apply `comment-depth' text properties when calling `back_comment'. Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:24:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20160313175922.GE1871@acm.fritz.box> <0ce1b5a5-6892-47ad-03d4-d4c2ba2bea54@yandex.ru> <20160314122330.GC1894@acm.fritz.box> <20160314172940.GG1894@acm.fritz.box> <04defc46-af0c-6345-1570-83c1ae4ce14f@yandex.ru> <20160314184621.GH1894@acm.fritz.box> <20160314212024.GK1894@acm.fritz.box> <20160317184741.GA9038@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458264305 6324 80.91.229.3 (18 Mar 2016 01:25:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 18 02:25:00 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1agj9t-0000ya-Qe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:24:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40855 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agj9s-00024n-Vf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:24:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47668) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agj9f-00023k-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:24:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agj9b-0007Mg-7o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:24:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]:35022) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agj9a-0007MZ-UN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:24:39 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id l68so14399389wml.0 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:24:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:subject:to:references:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdBW7Bo1IjC4V87e3F5/QjCthlFInfQPqoQe1Rpgf64=; b=QxMqGjdF6S1F0CoceCOQX3pf4BgmnuwlV2NSfCaRPE6OA9osla/Moa67ZTyZ+yDJ+U sM+v7ToQM7gPTB4iJj55arl+LWq/lk6wRm+1NA3o0sSXBDRawiLbSpZ2ZbUibTzWDJWu xcC9B6jwppDfYM5UCv4WB83et1o3VG6ksnxMyEEdpA2lnIgQ28Jk2md31swNhfIhhNs7 +d35kmk8yY+Y19dDh9mWUVkqHnNwg6hKykpOzfk2OiV1WRxByTVV2n2YM7kdyBoHZrh2 2VhQpLPannYaC5HtCiI7V7pmnf6F1TrRcQBSDV5WYvKyXXmdacIkmin+g/FtYppXRtan Ut1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:subject:to:references:cc:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdBW7Bo1IjC4V87e3F5/QjCthlFInfQPqoQe1Rpgf64=; b=TY2hjKHDY/y9BLu95QoIs+eEBbXtqDhWmFKWBexuaug6m7VhagY++Jprh/Yd61xA+J 6M3TTFlu3Wj0jeKCdQDo4Q2lNs+jhRuBe8Mh7MvIJmzpxkiphzv4OAmJgeSIDGf+cOUC /MTkNPJfLWqGyTZOusts/AgEWImZwdv39gceUqzKbnQXHHwoXh1nAv0Z6MV2b9UynEnh TlBF5lwFtG93BIpH6X9yLlj7rxV3xcRiC5H7xs2E17BXAWkla8cp1ZDkclqWDyOHMEM9 ORN5f8tThimvmuioxu/t/UY/E/VLzDLk0opm9VWv983qQzcn+RaUdQBK69Ck7PgKav6E CBgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKVQHo3wb8h05jDJElmFbERHJvmbZhsBfW5Jr8IA24ussccUpZyNXfPJxO6zBrbOQ== X-Received: by 10.28.158.15 with SMTP id h15mr40758692wme.89.1458264277993; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [10.9.0.103] (nat.webazilla.com. [78.140.128.228]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id p191sm5379220wmb.0.2016.03.17.18.24.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:24:37 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 In-Reply-To: <20160317184741.GA9038@acm.fritz.box> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201817 Archived-At: Hi Alan, On 03/17/2016 08:47 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > You have trimmed so much away that the context has been totally > lost. You have removed all mention of "syntax-ppss", leaving just lots > of "it"s. Sorry about that? Carrying around too much context makes me uncomfortable when writing, or reading, emails. If anything, the lack of context was not a cause for misunderstanding on my side. > You have removed references to CC Mode which would have > allowed other parts of your post to make sense. This makes both of us > look like idiots arguing over trivialities. Honestly, I'm not sure which references would have helped, and how; CC Mode was last mentioned directly (not in a quote) in the grand{7}parent of this message. > You have the audacity to state the falsehood that the comment-cache > branch doesn't fix bug #22884. OF COURSE that code fixes bug #22884, I'm sorry for misunderstanding, and hence misstating the state of affairs with comment-cache. But if you reread your previous email (or two), I believe you can agree that the fault is not entirely mine. To be continued privately. > [ Here "it" is syntax-ppss. ] > >>> I meant, its deficiencies need fixing, and it's not clear at this stage >>> how that's to be done. I've said elsewhere what I expect to happen: >>> that it will be superseded by a different function with the same name. > >> And I've replied to it already. The "deficiencies" aren't fixed yet >> because they haven't bothered anyone enough yet. > > They bother me considerably, and they bother John, too. I have now posted the big and scary patch to the bug thread, to address this complicated issue. >> The narrowing thing is relatively minor, .... > > I think your reasoning is that because you personally don't use > narrowing, it is of no importance. No, I'm saying that because the nature of the problem is clear, and the ways we can fix it don't affect the usage of syntax-ppss in the proposed patch. > I also disagree with you that "sort of works" is good enough. Did I claim that? > Maybe it > comes from my background in embedded systems, where the cost of failure > is inordinately high, hence rigorous testing is the norm. My background is in high level programming, where there's usually a lot of concepts in a system. Not entirely unlike what we have in Emacs. The idea of someone introducing a parallel, subtly incompatible, implementation of an existing widely used facility, without studying it carefully and making sure to unify the duplicated parts (or at least making an honest effort toward that), is nothing to celebrate either. > The idea of a > function with undefined functionality (such as syntax-ppss) going into a > release because "nobody's complained about it" would inspire contempt and > disbelief in any of my colleagues. Maybe that's just me. Maybe "sort of > works" is good enough for Emacs. I don't believe it is. Bald tyres on a > car "sort of work" - until they don't. This is volunteer work: it's not strict enough because nobody has invested the necessary work. Even so, we don't get to ignore or remove syntax-ppss just because it doesn't meet your standards, without providing an adequate replacement. > [ .... ] > >> I mean, anticipating unknown problems sounds nice, but it's hardly the >> most important thing, given we have plenty of known ones. > > It's a matter of economy of effort. When I come to fix a problem, I > always ask myself what was the misunderstanding or misconception or even > confusion which gave rise to it in the first place. Where else could the > same misunderstanding lead to further problems? That's a good sentiment. > If a fix, as well as > fixing the immediate bug, can also prevent further similar failures (not > necessarily identified) at the same time, it is a more economical use of > effort than just making a quick fix. Remember, Emacs is ~30 years old, > and might well be in use for another 30 years. That's an awful lot of > opportunity for hidden bugs to reveal themselves. The stuff about not duplicating things is a matter of economy of effort, too. Producing adequate test cases for patches, that justify the choices made, is a matter of economy of effort too, but in a different respect. Trying to fix an issue one doesn't have a good understanding of, can lead to wasted effort as well. Both in the process and down the line, if the vaguely beneficial improvement gets merged.