[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: define-derived-mode
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: define-derived-mode |
Date: |
Sun, 8 May 2005 09:04:28 -0500 (CDT) |
>From my previous message:
I am not really sure that it is such a great idea to have
`define-minor-mode' and `define-generic-mode' spew out all these
automatic defcustoms, but given that they do that, it seems rather
strange and inconsistent that `define-derived-mode' does not.
On second thought, I now believe that the above is a bad idea. It is
an incompatible change. People may already have hand defined
defcustoms for these modes and making define-derived-mode construct
them automatically would lead to competing defcustoms, which would be
very bad.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- Re: define-derived-mode, (continued)
- Re: define-derived-mode, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/05/08
- Re: define-derived-mode, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, David Kastrup, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/12
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/17
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/10
- Re: define-derived-mode, Juanma Barranquero, 2005/05/08
- Re: define-derived-mode, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/09
Re: define-derived-mode,
Luc Teirlinck <=