[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 b6d6304: Comment on last change to define-der

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 b6d6304: Comment on last change to define-derived-mode
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 05:11:56 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0

On 03/05/2016 04:09 AM, Leo Liu wrote:
On 2016-03-04 18:10 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
In this case, though, maybe we should revert the revert, all things

I love to hear the `all things' that you have considered?

That putting the keyword arguments from BODY on the same line as the mode name is semantically wrong? And it's prone to result in longer lines? And that right now there's a weird comment inside define-derived-mode that makes little sense without additional context?

Make a trivial
change is trivial but I would like to know we have enough justification
to change something that people have grown dependent in the past 10

It might cause you to reformat a few lines over the next few years, but it's hardly a cause for major concern.

However: I'm having hard time reproducing the justification stated in 2c3b05c93e4884460068a12357ebd04ae4cd7446. The given example indents just as fine without (indent 3), in 'emacs -Q'.

Oleh, care to elaborate?

reply via email to

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