[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r101338: * lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el (syntax-pp

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r101338: * lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el (syntax-ppss): More sanity check to catch
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:07:11 +0200

> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:46:11 +0100
> Using different modes on a buffer would seem like a rather canonical use
> case for indirect buffers.  If they don't work well for that, one needs
> to think about _what_ would work better.  That may mean improving
> indirect buffers or creating something different.  In which case one
> should recheck whether indirect buffers work well for _anything_.

The problem, AFAIU, is that different use cases expect different
things from indirect buffers.  E.g., some expect them to share text
properties, while others want them not to.  Since indirect buffers
share text with their base buffer, such conflicting requirements are
impossible to implement.

IOW, this is business as usual: a feature is invented having a certain
use case in mind, but then it gets used for entirely different use
cases, and everybody expects the new toy to do exactly what they want.

reply via email to

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