Re: define-derived-mode

[Lute Kamstra]

Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> If I understood correctly, define-generic-mode only started
> constructing automatic defcustoms recently,

True; I made the change.

> which was an incompatible change.

Not compatible with what?

> In that case, it could easily be reversed, which would make the two
> major mode defining functions consistent in this respect.

I primarily wanted to define the mode hook as a variable so that I
could give it docstring.  I chose defcustom over defvar because
define-minor-mode and quite some other major modes did that.  I don't
strongly object to making the defcustom a defvar, but I don't
understand your problems with the use of defcustom:

> Customizing mode hooks through Custom is only convenient if an
> :options keyword is used.  (Currently, customizing hooks through
> Custom is not advisable to begin with because of several bugs we
> discussed before.  We plan to fix these in Emacs 23 or 24.)

I don't recall the bugs you refer to; could you give me the subject(s)
of the relevant thread(s)?

Lute.