[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: define-derived-mode
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: define-derived-mode |
Date: |
Sat, 7 May 2005 22:15:02 -0500 (CDT) |
>From my previous message:
I am not really sure that it is such a great idea to have
`define-minor-mode' and `define-generic-mode' spew out all these
automatic defcustoms, but given that they do that, it seems rather
strange and inconsistent that `define-derived-mode' does not.
If one would make it construct defcustoms, then maybe that should only
happen if the :group keyword is given, so it would not get into the
same default group problems as `define-{minor,generic}-mode'.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- define-derived-mode, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/05/07
- Re: define-derived-mode,
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: define-derived-mode, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/08
- Re: define-derived-mode, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/05/08
- Re: define-derived-mode, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, David Kastrup, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/12
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/17
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/05/09
- Re: define-derived-mode, Lute Kamstra, 2005/05/10
- Re: define-derived-mode, Juanma Barranquero, 2005/05/08