From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Algorithm in electric-pair--unbalanced-strings-p unsuitable for CC Mode Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 12:33:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20190702160410.GB30597@ACM> <20190702182811.GC30597@ACM> <20190703105804.GA11238@ACM> <20190704165846.GF5564@ACM> <20190704190100.GG5564@ACM> <20190708100539.GD4529@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="97356"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= , emacs-devel To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 08 18:36:10 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hkWcb-000PBD-Tq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 18:36:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43294 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hkWca-0006jZ-Uy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 12:36:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49866) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hkWad-0006jC-V6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 12:34:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hkWac-0001cb-Qv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 12:34:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:27669) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hkWac-0001Sa-JL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 12:34:06 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E41384447E6; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BE6F34447E1; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:33:58 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1562603638; bh=azcmcuEliU53dqheSqVrfjfj3hvyvzt6kco5RBkOZqY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SpxKsqRLrR+9myd1P35EFLRAk3O+5a9ZBQzJHyWcz/gTdKyRDK0gOWkIMQBRWoLDF 7Yje401ORN5J5GphocMy2oFmCjbfgCFdLQK/uK1gNYRmnF52VbM0Mfr4VoTTmbWRJZ zF2q506nT9nCYiZfMF08/1Pi8DPhnjHhFOriVPO+TDa5AoS0M5tayx0jyY3h08HBkk Si8SN80uo9akEI2+RFcEjTWIdgR2GxYFjDhW1b2AdTkdwLd16kY6J3h0uXMkunzQTC K4i4vl42B9YaDGqgLPLEgFSRM4CRFC9DRM+DZhi5+eYqrp/RXtO14E06X4ZgNYvDbm g9UnVhRqxHzfw== Original-Received: from pastel (76-10-138-228.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.138.228]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 872D8120BB3; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:33:58 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 08 Jul 2019 11:49:54 -0400") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:238407 Archived-At: > While I'm not completely sure what this will look like, my gut reaction > to this description is "Yuck!! Ugly hack to workaround breakage > introduced by other ugly hack!" > Usually this leads to yet more ugly hacks. BTW, re-reading this, I see it could be taken as a personal attack, so I want to clarify that I consider Emacs to be full of ugly hacks and that a significant proportion of them come directly from me: sometimes it's still the best we can come up with :-( But I obviously still think in this case that the choice of leaving the text on subsequent lines (after a string with no \ nor closing ") highlighted as if they were part of the string is a much better option. Stefan