Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b765164: ;Partially revert 2649105a

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b765164: ;Partially revert 2649105a

[Stefan Monnier]

> -  (add-function :override (local 'prettify-symbols-compose-predicate)
> -                #'tex--prettify-symbols-compose-p)
> +  (setq-local prettify-symbols-compose-predicate #'tex--prettify-symbols-compose-p)

Actually, I prefer the add-function version, as can be seen by the fact
that I installed a patch which uses it.  And if you look at the commit
history, you'll see that I'm about as close to "maintainer of
tex-mode.el" as there is, so please revert your reversion unless you
have a concrete reason for it (not just "taste" on which we simply
differ and neither can claim that the other one is wrong).


        Stefan

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b765164: ;Partially revert 2649105a

[Mark Oteiza]

On 21/07/16 at 05:00pm, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > -  (add-function :override (local 'prettify-symbols-compose-predicate)
> > -                #'tex--prettify-symbols-compose-p)
> > +  (setq-local prettify-symbols-compose-predicate #'tex--prettify-symbols-compose-p)
> 
> Actually, I prefer the add-function version, as can be seen by the fact
> that I installed a patch which uses it.  And if you look at the commit
> history, you'll see that I'm about as close to "maintainer of
> tex-mode.el" as there is, so please revert your reversion unless you
> have a concrete reason for it (not just "taste" on which we simply
> differ and neither can claim that the other one is wrong).

Oh, I took
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-07/msg00816.html
as reason.  Will revert.

OOC, what patch uses it?

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b765164: ;Partially revert 2649105a

[Stefan Monnier]

> Oh, I took
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-07/msg00816.html
> as reason.  Will revert.

No I was just agreeing that it's not a tremendously useful use of
add-function.  I still prefer this "overkill" form, because in general
it behaves better (e.g. it can be useful in case someone uses this code
as inspiration elsewhere where the difference does matter).

> OOC, what patch uses it?

I was referring to the inverse patch to the one you installed (i.e. to
the patch that uses add-function, rather than to a patch which uses
that patch).


        Stefan

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b765164: ;Partially revert 2649105a

[Mark Oteiza]

On 21/07/16 at 05:14pm, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Oh, I took
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-07/msg00816.html
> > as reason.  Will revert.
> 
> No I was just agreeing that it's not a tremendously useful use of
> add-function.  I still prefer this "overkill" form, because in general
> it behaves better (e.g. it can be useful in case someone uses this code
> as inspiration elsewhere where the difference does matter).

Oh, I see. Sorry about that--done.

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b765164: ;Partially revert 2649105a

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> "SM" == Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:

SM> Actually, I prefer the add-function version, as can be seen by the fact
SM> that I installed a patch which uses it. And if you look at the commit
SM> history, you'll see that I'm about as close to "maintainer of tex-mode.el"
SM> as there is, so please revert your reversion unless you have a concrete
SM> reason for it (not just "taste" on which we simply differ and neither can
SM> claim that the other one is wrong).

Stefan, you missed a perfect opportunity to have said:

  So please revert your reversion unless you have a concrete aversion.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2