[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions.
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions. |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:24:55 -0400 |
> > I believe that one should revert to the 21.2.90 behavior and no longer
> > make the code expand into something different when the parent mode is
> > fundamental-mode.
>
> Any reason for it ? I hope you realize that `fundamental-mode'
> is an alias for `kill-all-local-variables'. The special-treatment
> of fundamental-mode is an *optimization* (i.e. should not make
> *any* difference in terms of behavior).
>
> I know that fundamental-mode is just an alias for
> `kill-all-local-variables'. But there are other differences between
> the two expansions than the fact that fundamental-mode is not
> explicitly called, for instance in the treatment of abbrev tables.
If there is a difference, it's a bug, so please report it.
Stefan
Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions., Luc Teirlinck, 2002/09/03
- Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions., Stefan Monnier, 2002/09/04
- Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions., Luc Teirlinck, 2002/09/04
- Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions., Stefan Monnier, 2002/09/06
- Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions., David Masterson, 2002/09/06
- Re: Recent attempts at standardizing major mode definitions., Luc Teirlinck, 2002/09/06