From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Getting rid of prog-indentation-context Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:08:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20171129233237.27462.23351@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <83lgil1qme.fsf@gnu.org> <83d13x1j2s.fsf@gnu.org> <34abea95-c7f7-e8fa-8407-8c2fd2a4cfe1@yandex.ru> <83y3mkzw1n.fsf@gnu.org> <83mv2zzv7z.fsf@gnu.org> <83o9nexy48.fsf@gnu.org> <83d13uxug5.fsf@gnu.org> <41e3f343-816f-d2db-6575-6ef43d54957f@yandex.ru> <838tecuqjb.fsf@gnu.org> <83609guppd.fsf@gnu.org> <83po7nt6oi.fsf@gnu.org> <83vahds0ew.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1513012127 27955 195.159.176.226 (11 Dec 2017 17:08:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:08:47 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 11 18:08:44 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eORZL-00074e-5b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:08:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54678 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eORZQ-00040e-S8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:08:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39231) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eORZK-00040Z-RO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:08:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eORZH-0007k7-G1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:08:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=48936 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eORZH-0007j3-8p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:08:39 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eORZ7-0006Yz-Mf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:08:29 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 51 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:2tmY3XmJz8f32TRL6zSdsbpQnN0= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:220890 Archived-At: >> >> Could we just mark them as obsolete in Emacs-26? >> > Doesn't sound like a good idea to me: something that was introduced >> > recently and barely had any chance to be used doesn't fall under the >> > "obsolete" label for me. >> Eli, I fail to understand what you expect prog-indentation-context will >> be used for. > Stefan, you admitted this stuff into Emacs 2 years ago, so why are you > asking me these questions? Because you clearly think it's important to have this new variable in Emacs-26. The important word in my question is "will". I don't expect an answer like "it will be used for mmm-support", but rather, which specific packages do you expect will make use of it? > I'm sure you asked that yourself back then, and I'm sure you had > good answers. I thought it would be used by updating "all" major modes to obey it, because I thought that relying on narrowing was unworkable (because of the usual ambiguities linked to narrowing's intentions). I now understand that narrowing's ambiguities are resolved by locally overriding the narrowing so it has a precise meaning. and I also know from experience that changing "all" major modes to obey prog-indentation-context is not going to happen. So, yes, we can keep prog-indentation-context in Emacs-26, but I still expect that antlr-mode (the only current package which sets prog-indentation-context) will sooner or later be changed to use narrowing instead, so prog-indentation-context will be just a weird wart whose only effect will be to confuse some people. Note also antlr-mode will work just as well without Emacs defining prog-indentation-context (it currently tests (boundp 'prog-indentation-context), but it only ever let-binds it, so the boundp test is not needed). >> Here's what I'd like to see happen for Emacs-26: > How is this different from what began this thread quite some time ago? > Do we want to start all over again? I'm not sure how the past discussions have changed people's positions on those different points. So I don't want to "start over", but rather I want to see what do we stand now. Also past discussion have changed my position to some extent which is reflected in my above presentation of the issues (e.g. mentioning that we could keep the first element of prog-indentation-context). Stefan