Re: skeleton.el _ versus @

[Stefan Monnier]

> > > > 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))

I don't understand why you get so worked up about it.
Having hacked on skeleton.el and used it, I know how to get it to do
what I want.  Just because changing the behavior to what you want
doesn't prevent me from getting the behavior I was looking for,
doesn't mean that your behavior is preferable.

Obviously both your suggested behavior and the current one are
acceptable and have their own pros and cons.

I have admittedly a slight preference for the current behavior
since I've taken advantage of it, but my main objection to your
change is that it will break existing skeletons without providing
a clearly superior behavior.

> It makes more sense for you since you are using @ incorrectly.

I see no evidence that it's incorrect usage.  As a matter
of fact, it is correct w.r.t the current code.

> 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.

That's interesting: what makes you think it was a programming error ?


        Stefan