[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: skeleton.el _ versus @
From: |
Joe Kelsey |
Subject: |
Re: skeleton.el _ versus @ |
Date: |
01 Apr 2003 16:08:03 -0800 |
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 09:40, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > The current code allows the following trick:
> > >
> > > "fun f (" @ ")" \n "{" \n _ \n "}"
> As for how you could get what you want with the current skeleton,
> how about something like:
>
> (nil "<script language=\"JavaScript\">" @ '(setq skeleton-point nil)
> "\n" _ "\n" @ "</script>" @)
I believe that the correct fix is for *you* to change *your* skeletons
to be:
(nil "fun f (" @ ")" \n "{" \n _ "}"
(setq skeleton-point (pop skeleton-positions))
It makes more sense for you since you are using @ incorrectly.
Simply because you have taken advantage of a programming error in the
past does not mean you can continue to do so in the future.
/Joe
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Miles Bader, 2003/04/01
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/01
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @,
Joe Kelsey <=
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/01
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/01
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2003/04/01
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/01
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/02
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Miles Bader, 2003/04/02
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Daniel Pfeiffer, 2003/04/03
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/09
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/09
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/10