[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question)
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question) |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:27:22 -0400 |
> > (defalias 'define-major-mode 'define-derived-mode)
> >
> > The two macros should not have the same calling convention.
> > define-major-mode should not have a parent argument.
>
> Why? It's certainly the case that some major-modes have `parent' modes,
> and some don't; really, the fact that they're major modes seems far more
> significant than that particular detail, so I'd think it would be _good_
> that they use the same macro, as long as:
As mentioned, in my view of the world, they all have a parent.
But this aside, we can also make the PARENT argument optional
(since it's always a symbol and the next arg (the mode's name) is
always a string).
Stefan
- Re: run-mode-hooks, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/16
- Emacs design question (was: run-mode-hooks), Kai Großjohann, 2003/07/16
- Re: Emacs design question (was: run-mode-hooks), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/20
- define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Stefan Monnier, 2003/07/21
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Miles Bader, 2003/07/22
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/23
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Miles Bader, 2003/07/23
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question),
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Miles Bader, 2003/07/23
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/25
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/24
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/24
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/22