[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#8626: 24.0.50; (elisp) Region to Fontify after a Buffer Change - Why
bug#8626: 24.0.50; (elisp) Region to Fontify after a Buffer Change - Why a child of Multiline Font Lock?
Fri, 6 May 2011 08:00:50 -0700
> > What limits the import of this node to multiline font-lock?
> > Nothing that I can see.
> Maybe the problem is "your" notion of "multiline font-lock"?
> There's no such thing as a "multiline font-lock" feature or
> functionality, but only "Multiline Font Lock Constructs",
> i.e. there are cases where a major mode needs to get font-lock
> to recognize elements that span multiple lines.
That _is_ "my" notion of "multiline font-lock" (and that's your term, not mine).
> > This node is about refontification after buffer changes. It is not,
> > logically, a subnode of `Multiline Font Lock Constructs'.
> It is about having to extend the refontification area because
> refontifying a single-line is not sufficient, presumably because the
> major mode has to handle a multiline font-lock construct.
The node _says_ it is about what you say up to the comma. You then add
"presumably...", which is _not_ part of the node content. This info is missing.
Also missing is whether anything stronger than "presumably" applies.
The node content is about the region to refontify after a buffer change. It
mentions that in some cases code might need to extend that region, to DTRT.
That's all that is said.
If the _only_ time this is pertinent is in the context of multiline font-lock
constructs, then please say so (and perhaps why, if helpful). If it is not the
only time, then add that this _can_ happen, in particular, in the context of
multiline font-lock constructs.
You seem to be fighting making this text clear. Please clearly specify how and
how much the (current) node content is related to multiline font-lock
constructs. That's what is missing.