Re: transpose-sexps

[Stuart D. Herring]

>> > It is probably possible to ask current major mode if we are in a
>> string.
>> > If it is not possible, than it is probably worth it to invent a
>> consistent
>> > interface that major modes would implement.  I agree that it is not to
>> be
>> > done now, of course.  (And while I'm at it, it's a pity that "now"
>> spans
>> > the last two years or so.)
>>
>> Again, this is not a question of inventiveness, consistency, or any
>> other
>> kind of design or programming at all.  It's a mathematical question,
>> really: it is easy to ask the question and to devise a mechanism for
>> doing
>> so, but it is algorithmically non-trivial to determine the answer.
>
> According to Stefan Monier, you can already ask `syntax-ppss'.  And that
> function already does some caching if I was to say from its code.
>
> Paul

The half of my message you did not include more or less said precisely
that, although I did not name but rather described the function.  The
point is that I don't know whether `syntax-ppss' is always accurate enough
and fast enough for us to want to include it in every call to
`transpose-sexps'; I believe it is still somewhat "beta".

The point is also that the solution you initially proposed ("to invent a
consistent interface that major modes would implement" if there was not
already one) seems to imply that the problem is one of providing a useful
interface to obvious, extant, simple functionality rather than of
implementing/applying a parser with a complicated time-space tradeoff.  I
thought you would want to know that there was a reason for the status quo,
even if it was merely "the alternatives are impractical", instead of it
merely being an oversight or coding bug.

Davis

-- 
This product is sold by volume, not by mass.  If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.