Re: A simple solution to "Upcoming loss of usability ..."

[Paul Eggert]

Oleh Krehel wrote:
> Paul Eggert<address@hidden>  writes:
>
> > >With the current approach, the Emacs sources don't need to be changed
> My sole objection was that they were changed. And I thought that was the
> whole point of it: that you want the markup to be its own visual
> representation.

Yes, I would like the markup to head that way.  But the Emacs source docstrings 
have largely not needed to change, and there's no need to change them right now.

> > >"Make ‘funcall/apply’ form to map SOURCE-ARGLIST to TARGET-ARGLIST...."
> This is already in the Emacs sources, so they were indeed changed.

I gave that example because I knew about it already and had already changed it 
for other reasons.  Most such examples haven't changed recently.  Here are some:

\(1) a local variables list or the `-*-' line specifies a major mode, or
If MARK is nil, then the default character `?r' is used.
the working buffer, `*1' the value in the process buffer.
same as in `newsticker--parse-atom-1.0'.
auto-newline minor mode is activated (as evidenced by a `/a' or `/ah'
Call `reftex-citation' with a format selector `?p'.

The current highlighting heuristics work reasonably well with these docstrings, 
because we want to highlight only quoted symbols, and we don't want to highlight 
the ‘-*-’ or the ‘?r' or etc.  But if we want to use font-lock to alter how 
quotes are displayed, these heuristics won't work well, as they'll fail to alter 
many quotes that they should alter.