[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Re: Algorithm in electric-pair--unbalanced-strings-p unsuita

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Algorithm in electric-pair--unbalanced-strings-p unsuitable for CC Mode
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 18:18:59 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2

On 09.07.2019 13:54, João Távora wrote:

How can this be disparagement? It's a simple statement of fact. If you didn't
break things, what did you fix and what are you fixing?  Is "break" the
word that you associate with disparagement, maybe? I admit it's a word
that I hear very often in software engineering, I didn't invent it.

Since the "correct" behavior is a matter of interpretation here, who broke what is a matter of interpretation. And I'm sure you can agree that "you broke XXX" can be interpreted emotionally. There's no real need to repeat that a few times, especially while certain someone is working on "fixing" it.

To get back to Clement's question (and maybe I'm just restating your opinion here), I think:

* Fontifying "broken" strings only until EOL might be beneficial, at least in certain languages, where it's consistent with the syntax. The result will be less "blinking".

* It doesn't seem trivial to implement without breaking a lot of pair-matching and quote-matching functionality, because both font-lock and the latter features depend on parse status, and buffer can be fontified in chunks, etc.

reply via email to

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