Re: replace-regexp, the byte-compiler, docstrings, and suggestions

[Emanuel Berg]

John Mastro <john.b.mastro@gmail.com> writes:

> So far I deal with that on a case-by-case basis. If
> I'm quoting code, I probably don't want it to be
> filled, but if it's text I probably do. Off-hand I
> can't think of a reason to use a different
> fill-column' than whatever is already set for the
> buffer.

Well, maybe you'd like a nice frame which includes the
right side?

But I agree, this is over-engineering. Just because it
is easily done doesn't mean one should do it.
Every time I do something good I do like three layers
or something like that. The first layer does something
good. The second layer does the same thing, only
modified for a special use case and invoked with a
prefix keystroke or whatever. The third layer is just
hacking-overdrive. Then when I start use it I almost
never use even the second layer. And if I do, I don't
use it by means of the second layer because I have
forgotten all about it - instead I use the first
layer, only with modified arguments (e.g., an absolute
path or explicit user).

>> Yeah, you mean `C-u 4 C-x TAB'? (`C-x TAB' is
>> indent-rigidly'.)
>
> `C-N foo' and `C-u N foo' both give `foo' a numeric
> argument `N' (for any N 0-9).

Are you sure? Try 'emacs -Q' and try to do that. I
don't get C-N to work but `C-u N' works.

-- 
underground experts united