[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete fast-lock and lazy-lock libraries

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete fast-lock and lazy-lock libraries
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:25:09 +0000

Hello, Stefan.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 08:07:31 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> We could OTOH add a new command to enter a form of
> >> `font-lock-debug-mode` which could disable the use of jit-lock (but not
> >> necessarily in exactly the same way as setting `font-lock-support-mode`
> >> would, tho it would probably be the most obvious immediate choice in the
> >> short term).

> > font-lock-support-mode is _NOT_ obsolete.  It is useful for debugging.

> That's why I propose to replace it with `font-lock-debug-mode`, which
> would both help discoverability and make it easier to use as well.

What you have done here is to take my words out of context, twist them,
and pretend to be agreeing with me.  Why do you do things like this?

Why can you not have an open honest discussion with me on things we
disagree about?

The necessary context you snipped, from my previous post, is this:

> > At the moment, sensible normal values are nil and jit-lock-mode.
> > Also sensible would be, for example, jit-lock-debug-mode, when a
> > user wants to compare standard jit with her own enhanced version.
> > It is not inconceivable that somebody might write something entirely
> > new to supersede jit-lock.  Why do you want to make these things
> > more difficult to do?

So the question remains: why do you want to make these more advanced
forms of debugging more difficult?  Your "... help both discoverability
and make it easier to use ..." could be summed up as dumming down.

Surely it would be possible to leave font-lock-support-mode with its
current power, while adding on these other things, too?

>         Stefan

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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