Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Changes in font locking

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>  > complain to you instead of to us, you accuse me of "inciting to
>  > riot" and declare that you can ignore reports regardless of their
>  > number.
>
> s/reports/duplicate nagging/

Which you declare even before receiving such a report.  And you ignore
"single nagging" because it supposedly indicates only outliers.

>  > I asked Artemio to report his problem, possibly including a
>  > screen shot for illustration.  You consider bug reports abuse,
>  > before you even see them?
>
> Of course not.  I do consider the way you submit reports to be
> abusive, though.  For heaven's sake, David, you yourself feel
> compelled to wrap them in a <rant> element half the time!

If I do this "half the time", it should not be difficult for you to
back up this claim with a _single_ such example.  I am afraid that
your memory plays games with you (not that this is the first time I
suspect that).  Such cutesies (as well as smilies) are not part of my
personal style.  I prefer to let the words speak for themselves.

> As for sight unseen, if Ralf is correct, I've seen it, and if it's
> the one I'm thinking of, I was unwilling to make a call then,
> apparently nobody else was either, and I don't have time to do a
> better job now.
>
> Unless, of course, somebody is willing to match the effort it will
> cost me.  Then we can check each other, which is more effective than
> trying to check myself, not to mention more fun.

You've seen Robert's patch and my comments on it, I presume, as well
as the corresponding code from Emacs I posted.

Finding out _who_ put that strange copy-syntax-table there for _what_
reason should be easy for an XEmacs developer with CVS access.

-- 
David Kastrup