|
| From: | Dmitry Gutov |
| Subject: | Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 b6d6304: Comment on last change to define-derived-mode |
| Date: | Sat, 5 Mar 2016 05:11:56 +0200 |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 |
On 03/05/2016 04:09 AM, Leo Liu wrote:
On 2016-03-04 18:10 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:In this case, though, maybe we should revert the revert, all things considered.I love to hear the `all things' that you have considered?
That putting the keyword arguments from BODY on the same line as the mode name is semantically wrong? And it's prone to result in longer lines? And that right now there's a weird comment inside define-derived-mode that makes little sense without additional context?
Make a trivial change is trivial but I would like to know we have enough justification to change something that people have grown dependent in the past 10 years.
It might cause you to reformat a few lines over the next few years, but it's hardly a cause for major concern.
However: I'm having hard time reproducing the justification stated in 2c3b05c93e4884460068a12357ebd04ae4cd7446. The given example indents just as fine without (indent 3), in 'emacs -Q'.
Oleh, care to elaborate?
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |