Re: antlr-mode.el - need some support by python.el

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>]

> While `widen-function' should be enough for this, maybe it's too flexible
> after all: that variable would never be used (correctly) with a buffer-local
> value. Only with local dynamic binding.

Actually, for Info-mode, it wouldn't be "scoped", so it would need to be
buffer-local (and even if it's scoped, it needs to say to which buffer
it applies).

>> It's OK if the API *allows* the use of
>> narrowing, but requiring it would be a mistake.
> I don't think any version of the API requires it.

IIUC, you want to remove the (START . END) data:

   > + The non-nil value looks as follows
   > +    ((START . END) LEFTMOST-COL)
   The first element tries to re-implement what's currently being handled with
   narrowing, successfully. Why?

I understood this as saying you want to enforce the use of narrowing to
pass to the sub-mode to bounds of its chunk.

> It doesn't require any changes to the narrowing/widening logic, so the
> question of whether narrowing is a good approach can again be deferred
> until later.

If you remove (START . END), then you decide that narrowing is the only
way to go.


        Stefan