Re: Emacs pretest -- electric-pair-mode change

[Kevin Rodgers <kevin.d.rodgers@gmail.com>]

On 4/3/14 11:33 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> [ Unrelated: it's odd that the speed should depend on the OS.  ]
>> I'm using two relatively similar dual-core machines. In windows I use
>> the builds of http://sourceforge.net/projects/emacs-bin/. Didn't I read
>> somewhere that these are compiled without optimization flags?
>
> Ah, so the difference is in the way they're compiled.  The OS factor is
> just "an accident".
>
>> Yes I see. But for me it's definitely better not to pair in those
>> situations
>
> But you'll also do the opposite: if there's an extra " somewhere far in
> the rest of the file (somewhere the user can't see and/or can't care
> less about), and the user has added a spurious " nearby, she will expect
> her next " to not-pair up (so as to complete the locally-unmatched, tho
> globally matched quote), whereas your code will decide to pair.
>
>> Anyway the "oh, it didn't pair..." disappointment is better than
>
> Yes, but the code can go wrong both ways.
>
>> "Something acceptible" then is "not pairing", just the self-insertion
>> the user asked for, rught?
>
> Yes.  Actually both pairing and non-pairing are acceptable.  What is not
> would be to signal an error, for example.
>
>> If (+ (point)<constant>) is less than (point-max) and inside a string
>> we additionally assert that at least that string is paired.
>
> Let's say (+ (point)<constant>) falls on the second line of the text
> below:
>
>     foo "bar" baz "toto
>     titi
>     tata "tutu" "blabla"
>
> should it say "yup, we're within the string 'toto\ntiti\ntata ' or
> should it say "no, we're not within a string"?
>
> If we agree that using (point-max) is a bad idea, then the only other
> option is to try and find some other spot in the buffer (and after
> point) which is somehow known to be "outside of a string", and in
> general we don't know how to find such a thing (point-max is the only
> one we know in general).  Hence electric-pair-string-bound-function
> (or give up on this idea and do something different).

Would replacing (+ (point) <constant>) with (window-end) give reliable
behavior, from the user's perspective?  If the extra " is not visible,
it would not impact the result.

-- 
Kevin Rodgers
Denver, Colorado, USA