From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.lang.lua.general Subject: Re: Last call for lua-mode contributors Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:09 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327069051 1956 80.91.229.12 (20 Jan 2012 14:17:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lua mailing list , emacs-devel@gnu.org, immerrr again To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 20 15:17:27 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RoFHO-0008Mr-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:17:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46473 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoFHO-0005YG-FB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56578) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoFHJ-0005Y9-9O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoFHF-0005m8-0l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:17 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:49480) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoFHE-0005m3-UP; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:12 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAAd3GU9MCos2/2dsb2JhbABDrgCBBoFyAQEFHTkjEAs0EhQYDSTAa4wmBIg8mnCEVg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,542,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="157769839" Original-Received: from 76-10-139-54.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.139.54]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2012 09:17:09 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1B2D25946E; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:09 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:32:57 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.183 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:147773 gmane.comp.lang.lua.general:87537 Archived-At: > [lua-mode redefines "_" as a word-component; it shouldn't, as it > really messes with users' instincts, and makes Emacs commands less > useful. Historically this was often done by language-modes as an BTW, this reminds me: why do word-based movement commands even care about the syntax-table? I understand that it's the way they're currently implemented, but AFAICT we don't actually want their behavior to depend on the major mode, do we? Stefan