[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: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r101338: * lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el (syntax-ppss): More sanity check to catch
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:54:49 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 06:44:13 +0200
>> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Half-kidding aside, yeah, it sounds like indirect buffers might need 
>> some bugfixing to be usable as a building block for mmm-mode.
> I think features that want mode-specific behavior in some region of a
> file need new infrastructure (that needs to be discussed and designed
> first).  Doing this mmm-style is IMO a terrible kludge that cannot
> possibly work well.  Serious functionality like that should stop
> piggy-backing unrelated features in Emacs, and request infrastructure
> that will serve them.  Straining Emacs Lisp-related extensibility for
> that is simply wrong, as it puts gratuitous pressure on existing
> infrastructure, and stands in the way of future development by
> imposing impossible backward compatibility requirements.

It's not like there isn't use for it: flex and bison files
(pattern/action) are multiple mode on a large scale, and even
address/action languages like sed and awk have facets of multiple modes.

LilyPond uses @lilypond tags in Texinfo to have examples written in
LilyPond code (and embedded as images in the info files).

Emacs can use text properties to switch syntax tables or categories or
even keymaps in mid-buffer.  Maybe switching the whole mode would be
feasible in a similar manner.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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