Re: Last steps for pretesting (font-lock-extend-region-function)

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, again, Stefan!

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>>So if you really manage to use the current
>>font-lock-extend-region-function (called from after-change-functions)
>>in a way that's robust, efficient, .....

>So far, yes (except, perhaps, for the need of an extend-region function
>in j-l-f-n and f-l-d-f-r).

>>.... and can't be done as efficiently/elegantly/robustly with a hook in
>>font-lock-fontify-region (or with the font-lock-multiline property),
>>please scream.

>AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

>I don't think we're going to agree on the relative elegance of
>font-lock-extend-region-function vs. font-lock-multiline.  I think that
>the former is more elegant than the latter, and you think the latter is
>the more elegant.

>I'm convinced that either approach would be robust (hey, we're competent
>hackers ;-).

>However, I think that f-l-extend-region-function can be done more
>efficiently by the major mode maintainer, in the sense that it will
>require less time and effort reading manuals, reading fine source, and
>coding.

Also critically important:  font-lock-extend-region-function is
documented in the Elisp manual.  The font-lock-multiline property isn't.
Would you please write this documentation now.  Then it would be much
easier for Richard, me and everybody else to compare the two approaches.
Thanks in anticipation!

>>        Stefan

>Alan.

-- 
Alan.