[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: Multiple major modes
From: |
Eric M. Ludlam |
Subject: |
Re[2]: Multiple major modes |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:14:20 -0400 |
[ ... ]
>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> seems to think that:
>Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> and something that should be addressed without imposing restrictions on
>>> specialized major modes.
>>
>> Actually, I think that in order to address it well, we will need to impose
>> restrictions on major modes (though only on the ones involved in
>> multiple-major-mode buffers) and maybe also on minor modes.
My parsing tool (semantic, referenced earlier) solved some problems w/
lots of mode-specific configurations via 'mode-local' variables and
methods. David Ponce wrote this, and suggested it here once before.
I don't recall what the end resolution was on it.
A multi-mode style thing would likely be simplified if key behaviors
were all defined via mode-local configurations, as that would allow
the multi-mode manager to get a complete query list of all
configuration differences without running the major-mode function.
http://cedet.cvs.sourceforge.net/cedet/cedet/common/mode-local.el?view=log
This tools has a spiff macro `with-mode-local', which lets you run a
bunch of code as if some other mode were active. This is used in our
grammar file so we can operate on grammar syntax w/ lisp syntax mixed
in. We can also operate on tags from other buffers by momentarily
using features of the originating major-mode.
Enjoy
Eric
>I think so to. I have seen some areas where some form of coherence is
>necessary:
>
>- fontification
>- indentation
>- parsing
>
>I think nxml-mode is a very good candidate for those that can be used in
>a multiple-major-mode buffers, since a mix of for example XHTML and PHP
>is common.
>
>This might seem impossible, since such code could not be valid XHTML.
>Actually it is not, the rng parser used in nxhtml-mode is quite good on
>guessing an apropriate state for completion. (But do not ask me what the
>rng parser does, I do not understand it.)
>
--
Eric Ludlam: address@hidden, address@hidden
Home: http://www.ludlam.net Siege: www.siege-engine.com
Emacs: http://cedet.sourceforge.net GNU: www.gnu.org
- Should nXML be included, Leo, 2007/06/11
- Re: Should nXML be included, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included, Jason Rumney, 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included, Peter Heslin, 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included, Jason Rumney, 2007/06/12
- Multiple major modes (was: Should nXML be included), Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Leo, 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re[2]: Multiple major modes,
Eric M. Ludlam <=
- Re: Multiple major modes, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13
- Re: Multiple major modes, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13
- Re[2]: Multiple major modes, Eric M. Ludlam, 2007/06/19
- Re: Multiple major modes, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/24
- Re[2]: Multiple major modes, Eric M. Ludlam, 2007/06/25
Re: Should nXML be included, Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/12
Re: Should nXML be included, Peter Heslin, 2007/06/12