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: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:55:46 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <83lgtouxpf.fsf@gnu.org> <20170202215154.GB2505@acm> <83h94bvhzw.fsf@gnu.org> <20170205220045.GB2294@acm> <83d1es61li.fsf@gnu.org> <20170211232511.GA13712@acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486860994 23134 195.159.176.226 (12 Feb 2017 00:56:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 00:56:34 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 12 01:56:29 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 1cciSr-0005lD-As for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 01:56:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50132 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cciSx-0002vx-3T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:56:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cciSN-0002vq-Vo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:56:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cciSK-0003FK-S3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:56:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=49789 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cciSK-0003F0-KQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:55:56 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cciSB-0003Nr-E7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 01:55:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:TcU3Z39NcSEl9VPTwHuNXjwtXmA= 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:212252 Archived-At: > In the current situation I think that both Stefan and Dmitry have an > emotional attachment to syntax-ppss despite its manifest flaws, and it Of course, I have an emotional attachment to syntax-ppss, since I wrote it and used it all over the place. And of course you have an emotional attachment to comment-cache since you wrote it. But using words like "flaw" to describe a simple shortcoming of the current implementation, is really not helping. I hope I never wrote something about your comment-cache that was similarly aimed at just putting it down. BTW, your comment-cache doesn't fix that "flaw" and hence won't help any of those users of syntax-ppss which can't be changed to use your comment-cache. Which is why I said many months ago that it'd be fine to use something like your comment-cache *if* you extend it to provide the functionality of syntax-ppss. But that's also why I think this whole discussion is pointless: we first need to focus on that "flaw" which comes to the problems of narrowing and whether tools like syntax-ppss, comment-cache, font-lock, etc... can and should widen and if so when and up to where. Stefan