[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist.
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist. |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:33:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> I of course understand why it would override them, but not why it
>>> would set major-mode to `latex-mode' rather than to `LaTeX-mode'.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, LaTeX-mode is the AUCTeX major mode, while
>>> latex-mode can be either, depending on the user's preference.
>
>> You are confusing the value of the major-mode variable with the
>> invocation.
>
> No such confusion: I'm quite aware of the difference. I may be
> misrepresenting things because looking at the current auctex CVS code
> I can't see where LaTeX-mode is defined.
>
> The variable `major-mode' *should* hold the function corresponding
> to this invocation, so you can return to the current major mode by
> calling it.
There is no point in using both latex-mode and LaTeX-mode to mean
something differently. There is a (albeit minor) point to using both
plain-tex-mode from tex-mode.el and LaTeX-mode from AUCTeX, though.
> It's used for C-h m for example, and probably by other things
> (e.g. clone-buffer, maybe mmm-mode, some hacks to "temporarily
> switch major mode", ...).
>
>> The invocation "LaTeX-mode" installs latex-mode with AUCTeX
>> keybindings, syntax tables, mode hooks and variables.
>
> In my opinion, calling LaTeX-mode should install LaTeX-mode.
That would mean that pretty much all mode-sensitive functions from
AUCTeX would break if you tried using them in a latex-mode started
session and vice versa. I don't see the point in providing different
function bindings to latex-mode and LaTeX-mode.
>> Except that it makes it harder to have unload-feature restore the
>> state previous to the loading.
>
> Yes, but you can't rely on unload-feature restoring the previous
> state anyway because it's broken, so it's not like it makes things
> worse.
I am relying on that part of the behavior that is not broken. If I
insisted on using and programming for only systems that are completely
unbroken in all respects, I'd not be using a computer.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., (continued)
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Richard Stallman, 2005/04/23
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Johan Vromans, 2005/04/21
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist.,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Richard Stallman, 2005/04/21
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/21
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Richard Stallman, 2005/04/23
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/20
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Lute Kamstra, 2005/04/24
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/24
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., Lute Kamstra, 2005/04/24
- Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist., David Kastrup, 2005/04/24