Re: superword-mode

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 29.03.2013 17:43, schrieb Ted Zlatanov:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:23:24 +0100 Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> AR> Am 29.03.2013 14:26, schrieb Ted Zlatanov:
> > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:00:11 -0400 Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:
> TZ> Juanma caught the problem that `forward-symbol' is autoloaded from
> TZ> `thingatpt.el' and `C-M-f' actually runs `forward-sexp'.  Oops.  So
> TZ> `superword-mode' is slightly broken currently.
> > >
> TZ> I need to know if I should:
> > >
> TZ> 1) use `forward-sexp' instead of `forward-symbol'
> TZ> 2) implement a local version of `forward-symbol'
> TZ> 3) autoload `forward-symbol'
> > >
> TZ> I'm leaning towards (1) because I think it would work great for CFEngine
> TZ> and Perl and C editing.  I don't want to assume it's the right solution,
> TZ> though, so let me know what you think.
> > > In order to avoid breakage I implemented (1) but please tell me if you
> > > think that's the wrong decision.  Thanks.
>
> AR> IMO that can't work, as forward-sexp has a long-time bug wrt to
> AR> strings.
>
> AR> Lately offered a solution for end-of-sexp from thingatpt.el, which
> AR> applies likewise.
>
> Sorry, I can't parse that sentence, and I don't have a reference for
> this solution.

bug#13973: Subject: 24.3; thingatpt.el, end-of-sexp

> AR> BTW why not simply change the syntax-class using modify-syntax-entry?
>
> That was my original approach, but it's incorrect according to Stefan.

Oh, because python-mode.el proceeds that way? :)
Can't see that stand in this thread, will cc it to him.

Assume it's a misunderstanding, as mode-specific syntax-changes are common.

BTW forward-sexp docu says it's not usable from inside a string. Once the bug 
is fixed,
that might be dropped.

Best,

Andreas


> Ted