[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:45:40 -0400 |
> * If a variable is bound locally by one of the major modes used within
> mumamo, or by the mode hooks it runs, then kill it when moving to a
> chunk in another major mode.
Do you mean the third case aboove here?
Yes.
I think this is a good idea.
This is what I have implemented now in the latest sources (and that I
sent here).
Ok.
> * Any other buffer-local variable should survive through motion
between
> chunks.
I am not sure about this one, but I think it would be better to use the
third case for these variables too (and that is what I do now) if not
their 'permanent-buffer local property is non-nil.
That is surely not right, because it means that almost all minor modes
can get lost when moving between chunks.
I think you should switch to what I proposed.
> Can you find any use cases where this would not be right?
Let say that the user for example want to use another indentation step
for a specific chunk type. Then my comment above would perhaps apply.
How would a user specify variable values for particular chunk types?
Does mumamo have a facility for that? I think only a special mumamo
facility could make this convenient.
That facility would implement whatever chunk-switching behavior is
most suitable.
So it looks my simple proposal is adequate.
I am a bit worried by this complexity for the users. One way to avoid it
would perhaps to introduce the concept of a new "persistent level"
between 'permanent-local=t and 'permanent-local=nil. A level that would
be like 'permanent-local=t but just for the current buffer.
That might be a good idea if we really need it.
But my proposal is simpler:
* If a variable is bound locally by one of the major modes used within
mumamo, or by the mode hooks it runs, then kill it when moving to a
chunk in another major mode.
* Any other buffer-local variable should survive through motion between
chunks.
So unless we see a use case for which this isn't right,
why not stick with it?
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, (continued)
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/23
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Stefan Monnier, 2008/09/23
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/23
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Stefan Monnier, 2008/09/23
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/23
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/24
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/24
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/25
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/25
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/26
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble,
Richard M. Stallman <=
- Selecting mumamo modes, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/25
- Re: Selecting mumamo modes, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/25
- Re: Selecting mumamo modes, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/26
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/23
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/23
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/24
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/24
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/25
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/09/25
- Re: Specifying mode in file variables trouble, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/26