From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Syntax sugar question Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:59:33 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20210411030711.cpbbesqkuipt3lzc.ref@Ergus> <20210411030711.cpbbesqkuipt3lzc@Ergus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="12379"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 11 15:01:45 2021 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 1lVZih-00037g-Ln for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 15:01:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38840 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVZig-0000hk-N2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 09:01:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55478) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVZgj-0008Fk-Cf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:59:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:14675) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVZgf-0004KR-M6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:59:40 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9FD711001D2; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 03C8B100068; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:59:35 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1618145975; bh=r3QEe6NycFmOcIk1B1LqklFRCZQWBf3LYvFAlhEbg0g=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gD3bHLZVGMEm6H8ilLXZu2lAym3kgaOOS1b3v0uyohQkPHZ7+RkHo4fg038OxqTYP pwbZYsqMg0BaTuNf7BUfpXJII8BrSq4iZRFoC2wrt5bgG9IsW1RzgnAekjgKuAwlvH wVSYRjQiinJjKX8y48lE+z5kPMEn5RpY0FHRbZFPTQnYVuQHjJJoibg/KW6bUO9DDG K1RQH9CThxU32lZymg5ElfTwKHcvZT7xKS32qwKf9ToaCfFM3XqY2K8aoeeHFALGZC ntUX9HlhaprLSGUAguDg0ePWLi8u6iJiEa5pq5HzVuCgf9YQzwqOzedinh05xwvtyU umjMgM08MpmPg== Original-Received: from alfajor (104-222-126-84.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.222.126.84]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2FA2120384; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:59:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20210411030711.cpbbesqkuipt3lzc@Ergus> (Ergus's message of "Sun, 11 Apr 2021 05:07:11 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:267871 Archived-At: > Why the minor modes variables are only t or nil? Because that's how they've been defined. There's nothing magical about minor modes, so you can definitely define something that looks and acts very much like a minor mode but doesn't limit itself to boolean values. Whether the `define-minor-mode` macro should offer a way to do that is hence a UI design question. I can see the benefit of what you propose, but I also see the benefit of sticking to this simple model. [ I don't understand the choice of "Subject:" here, I must say. What do minor modes have to do with syntactic sugar? ] Stefan