[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 23.0.60; whitespace.el mishap

From: Rajesh Vaidheeswarran
Subject: Re: 23.0.60; whitespace.el mishap
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:24:03 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)

Miles Bader wrote:
Vinicius Jose Latorre <address@hidden> writes:
Well, indeed the old whitespace-buffer had reported
where the bogus whitespace had happened.

Instead of reporting, the new whitespace-mode
displays visually the bogus whitespace.

Is it ok if the new whitespace-buffer is removed?

Maybe a better alternative should be to create a
whitespace-report command which reports like the old

My personal opinion is that the old whitespace mode was pretty wacky,

Miles, that's a matter of opinion, and this is your opinion. I just beg to differ, as do the 150-200 people who I wrote this for.

and had lots of unneeded features and features which didn't follow Emacs
conventions.  It doesn't seem necessary to me to _exactly_ preserve the

No one stopped you from either filing bugs against it, or better still "fixing" it. That's pretty much all I have to state on this thread.

interface (maybe some def-obsolete-alias could be used in some case),
just keep those commands which were actually useful, and maybe try to
make them follow emacs conventions better.

E.g., how about:

  + `suspicious-whitespace-mode' -- highlights only "suspicious"
    whitespace, i.e., that which probably should be removed. This is
    sort of like the old "whitespace-buffer" command, but implemented as
    a proper mode, or like your "whitespace-mode", but only highlights
    suspicious whitespace.  [dunno about the term "suspicious", but you
    know what I mean]

  + `cleanup-whitespace' -- removes suspicious whitespace [same
    definition as suspicious-whitespace-mode]


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]