:group keyword for define-derived-mode

2005-05-19 Thread Luc Teirlinck
@code{customize-mode} currently uses this. @code{define-derived-mode} + does @emph{not} automatically define the specified customization group. @end table Here is a hypothetical example: ___

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-17 Thread Lute Kamstra
Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] >> Such a change is no big deal. Let's turn off generation of these >> defcustoms. > > I just did this for define-generic-mode. > I'll do define-minor-mode as well. Done. Lute. ___

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-12 Thread Lute Kamstra
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I understood correctly, define-generic-mode only started > constructing automatic defcustoms recently, which was an incompatible > change. In that case, it could easily be reversed, which would make > the two major mode defining f

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-10 Thread Lute Kamstra
Luc Teirlinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lute Kamstra wrote: > >> which was an incompatible change. > >Not compatible with what? > > With pre-existing defvars or defcustoms for these hooks. (Unless you > checked for _all_ uses of `define-generic-mode' that there are none. > But how did

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-09 Thread Luc Teirlinck
Lute Kamstra wrote: > which was an incompatible change. Not compatible with what? With pre-existing defvars or defcustoms for these hooks. (Unless you checked for _all_ uses of `define-generic-mode' that there are none. But how did you get a list of _all_ outside packages that use it?) I

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-09 Thread Lute Kamstra
Luc Teirlinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > If I understood correctly, define-generic-mode only started > constructing automatic defcustoms recently, True; I made the change. > which was an incompatible change. Not compatible with what? > In that case, it could easily be reversed, which

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-09 Thread David Kastrup
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I understood correctly, define-generic-mode only started > constructing automatic defcustoms recently, which was an > incompatible change. In that case, it could easily be reversed, > which would make the two major mode defining fu

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-09 Thread Richard Stallman
If I understood correctly, define-generic-mode only started constructing automatic defcustoms recently, which was an incompatible change. In that case, it could easily be reversed, which would make the two major mode defining functions consistent in this respect. For define-m

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-09 Thread Richard Stallman
> However, I am not sure we want defcustoms for *any* mode hooks. How > often would a user want to customize one with defcustom? C:\...\lisp> grep -E "defcustom.*-mode-hook" *.el add-log.el:(defcustom change-log-mode-hook nil autorevert.el:(defcustom auto-revert-mode-hoo

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-08 Thread Juanma Barranquero
> However, I am not sure we want defcustoms for *any* mode hooks. How > often would a user want to customize one with defcustom? C:\...\lisp> grep -E "defcustom.*-mode-hook" *.el add-log.el:(defcustom change-log-mode-hook nil autorevert.el:(defcustom auto-revert-mode-hook nil autorevert.e

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-08 Thread Luc Teirlinck
Richard Stallman wrote: I don't follow the logic of this argument. Whatever group is right for the move variable, isn't that right for the hook variable too? I believe that we are misunderstanding each other, but since I changed my mind on the issue in the meantime, this has become irrelev

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-08 Thread Richard Stallman
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'. I don't follow the logic of this argument. Whatever group is right for the move vari

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-08 Thread Luc Teirlinck
>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&#

Re: define-derived-mode

2005-05-07 Thread Luc Teirlinck
>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&#

define-derived-mode

2005-05-07 Thread Luc Teirlinck
`define-minor-mode' and `define-generic-mode' generate defcustoms for their mode hooks, `define-derived-mode' does not. 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 gi