Subject: bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:08:23 +0300

> From: João Távora <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:03:01 +0100
> Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <[email-masked]>, Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>, 
> 	Juri Linkov <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
> 
> > Thanks.  The backward-incompatible change in lisp-mode-variables is
> > something I'd like to avoid.  Is it really necessary?
> 
> What is it backward-incompatible to?  As far as I can tell, it's an
> internal lisp routine, not called by any code outside of Emacs core.

It isn't internal judging by its symbol, so it would be good not to
break compatibility, I think.

> If you're talking strictly about about keeping the calling convention
> for any hypothetical user code that might be relying on it, we can 
> add `&rest dummy`.  But I can't really see the why. 

It's just good practice.  It prevents us from dealing with later
complaints and bug reports about breaking someone's code.

> Do you want me to do either of these 2 things?

If it isn't infeasible, please do.

> > The tramp-persistency-file-name has a known fixed file name; why not
> > add it to auto-mod-alist?  Likewise with eww's eww-bookmarks and
> > saveplace's save-place-file (2 standard names). 
> 
> I just thought it was simpler to add the cookie.  What's
> the problem with that?

Existing files was what I had in mind.

> Anyway, I can surely switch to auto-mode-alist if you 
> insist, no problem. Do you insist in this?

Do I have to insist?

In any case, I didn't mean to use auto-mode-alist _instead_ odf adding
the cookie automatically, I meant to do it in addition.

> If you do use and know some of these files, I think I've shown
> how trivial it is to make them use lisp-data-mode.

Sorry, I don't have time to do that research for now.  Hopefully,
someone else will be able to do that.

Thanks.