Re: 23.0.60; whitespace.el mishap

[Rajesh Vaidheeswarran]

Miles Bader wrote:
> Vinicius Jose Latorre <address@hidden> writes:
>   
> > Well, indeed the old whitespace-buffer had reported
> > where the bogus whitespace had happened.
> >
> > Instead of reporting, the new whitespace-mode
> > displays visually the bogus whitespace.
> >
> > Is it ok if the new whitespace-buffer is removed?
> >
> > Maybe a better alternative should be to create a
> > whitespace-report command which reports like the old
> > whitespace-buffer.
> >     
>
> My personal opinion is that the old whitespace mode was pretty wacky,
>   

Miles, that's a matter of opinion, and this is your opinion. I just beg 
to differ, as do the 150-200 people who I wrote this for.


> and had lots of unneeded features and features which didn't follow Emacs
> conventions.  It doesn't seem necessary to me to _exactly_ preserve the
>   

No one stopped you from either filing bugs against it, or better still 
"fixing" it. That's pretty much all I have to state on this thread.


> interface (maybe some def-obsolete-alias could be used in some case),
> just keep those commands which were actually useful, and maybe try to
> make them follow emacs conventions better.
>   

> E.g., how about:
>
>   + `suspicious-whitespace-mode' -- highlights only "suspicious"
>     whitespace, i.e., that which probably should be removed. This is
>     sort of like the old "whitespace-buffer" command, but implemented as
>     a proper mode, or like your "whitespace-mode", but only highlights
>     suspicious whitespace.  [dunno about the term "suspicious", but you
>     know what I mean]
>
>   + `cleanup-whitespace' -- removes suspicious whitespace [same
>     definition as suspicious-whitespace-mode]
>
> -Miles
>
>