From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: An anonymous IRC user's opinion Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 22:59:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87plodsjsd.fsf@web.de> <865xq14dwp.fsf@gnu.org> <343c4d04-af53-4da2-9d1c-c616c74821e1@gutov.dev> <86plo8369c.fsf@gnu.org> <63edeeea-1f24-4d3b-abc8-b96b164942e4@gutov.dev> <8634l1zsej.fsf@gnu.org> <9a8b97f8-def3-43ce-b71b-1f09bb05afd4@gutov.dev> <86cyk4vcld.fsf@gnu.org> <86ttdgthg2.fsf@gnu.org> <86ed4kt2ws.fsf@gnu.org> <8e30fb5c-8e1b-4f73-98eb-50c5c396efb0@gutov.dev> <86ldyqsrax.fsf@gnu.org> <10864c02-4bfd-41c3-bb45-6fe1155f9676@gutov.dev> <867ca9shcw.fsf@gnu.org> <7cb15f5c-efd0-4516-8190-a53c0d958eb6@gutov.dev> <86ses8x1po.fsf@gnu.org> <865xp3w64u.fsf@gnu.org> <61171da3-7428-4572-bc13-783766a123b5@gutov.dev> <86v7x2u7rz.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: johan.myreen@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 04 22:00:02 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1t84B7-00022U-Co for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2024 22:00:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t84AM-0001cZ-HM; Mon, 04 Nov 2024 15:59:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t84AL-0001cG-AJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2024 15:59:13 -0500 Original-Received: from fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([202.12.124.147]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t84AI-0004XJ-Tz; Mon, 04 Nov 2024 15:59:12 -0500 Original-Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.phl.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F8911401A7; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:59:09 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 04 Nov 2024 15:59:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1730753949; x=1730840349; bh=79sG8mNuo1pm2P7c3ifOLeavgd+DKh6rjXItoJsEqo4=; b= Qii4Df+D8XAqH+kqeNdhmwDkq7FfVIYZWDYDhj3cA/QTHnWii/oXQfEO+Y3ZPfyX /7UyQynn5Nd+Bby/jy8wUlfzc4ztzTNtcivrovXs3MCrdkUIJu4bZRECdzSnpgwg 0snKSoWqA9s8sFyyPhnQ+GqD2MpGoVXedmJqAXkGY9e5bBPAE/gqkXUh37q+uvOz Uvc09IrEgZMg94T2mpxyUacgc8ucLafznmr8hwTZfBaN/OTqvP1SIBGSpAsezpAG 9ieOkmz3/P6spEujhUStCC1gJneIeaRBxdxc7xzB+1nMCkmqGW0K/7o+bXoo/NW5 DVog+6N3A63Is1F334hHGA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1730753949; x= 1730840349; bh=79sG8mNuo1pm2P7c3ifOLeavgd+DKh6rjXItoJsEqo4=; b=h lN73rQHJYBk/T1V5Q9e+h8Y+cZU9LQ/hS98k5jSJVFYv8zzEJoZ7+a1K4vHku0As seEHxCLsGTiiAJJfRQHY733FIUxkVfzQudyXW6fe4Cfui+f8vMonDOrz2/aielYV CCZPsrb5L0LhSroYitovB6fzfLGIaIrz1HF/N6vVy+9j35r5/wx05tbhWInVd+w7 /mT7bX0OdaAM0B5wYxR4j0UzyNq1C6lmq3Er1qVqCIu8x6f+HI+j6ER+8w8HplYF Lr2Iy039sosCtsodMEpXqooVy/UJHI2oym7n3Kr4bhmdT8KjPl8aDwVjzAcRzniC YEKW0vu62sgm4VwWNPY9g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdeliedgudegvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttddv jeenucfhrhhomhepffhmihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrd guvghvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeetudeljeegheetgfehgeejkeeuhedvveeikeeu fedtvddtveefhfdvveegudejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmh epmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvhdpnhgspghrtghpthht ohepfedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepvghlihiisehgnhhurdhorh hgpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhohhgrnhdrmhihrhgvvghnsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghp thhtohepvghmrggtshdquggvvhgvlhesghhnuhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i07de48aa:Fastmail Original-Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:59:07 -0500 (EST) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <86v7x2u7rz.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=202.12.124.147; envelope-from=dmitry@gutov.dev; helo=fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -26 X-Spam_score: -2.7 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:325123 Archived-At: On 04/11/2024 21:18, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> If we don't override existing traditional modes, what's the harm? > > Oh, but we do. Even if there's no mode defined for a file, people > might expect to have Fundamental mode. We had this discussion before, > and we even had someone who complained that some file suddenly turned > on a TS mode where previously there was Fundamental mode. That was > one of the reasons we made these modes optional in Emacs 29, so let's > not repeat past mistakes. That was with toml-ts-mode. So you think we should prioritize the scenario where people prefer fundamental-mode over go-ts-mode or typescript-ts-mode as well? >> If we >> also exclude "small" modes like toml-ts-mode and dockerfile-ts-mode from >> being enabled by default, we can be reasonably sure that when the user >> visits a matching file, they will want to have the grammar installed. > > I don't think we can be reasonably sure, no. > >>> Without the user's say-so, this could be considered a nuisance. Why >>> should Emacs annoy a user with some potential feature when the user >>> didn't say she wants to use it? >> >> Could be considered a nuisance, or a boon. > > See above: we've been there already, and we know it isn't a boon. We've been there in a particular configuration (one that included Emacs being configured --without-tree-sitter). > Silently providing no features (and relying on people to read the docs > and set up their Emacs) is perhaps not the ideal situation, but > annoying users with warning messages they didn't ask for is worse. > > Again, we've been there, and I'm not going to agree to go back. Ok. >> Note that I don't have a goal of forcing tree-sitter on everybody: >> previously I suggested to have all ts mode off by default. But if we're >> going to set them up, the above seems to make the most sense. > > Not to me, it doesn't. > > Why is it a problem to ask users to whitelist some of these modes? Not a problem, no. They can do this already by customizing major-mode-remap-alist, for example. >> This is also a valid approach, albeit a more complex one. This variable >> would only be tested during Emacs' startup, though, and during >> 'package-initialize', making its use not very transparent. > > It will be tested right there in auto-mode-alist, like the change you > proposed, just with another test. I'm concerned about the ergonomics of this option. >> E.g. we >> wouldn't react to having it changed in Customize. So it's not my >> preferred approach to this problem. > > I don't see why this couldn't be a defcustom. Would it have a non-default setter?