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

From: João Távora <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:57:19 +0100

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:08 PM Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

Most of the code in Emacs doesn't follow the -- naming convention,
yet. There are no mentions to it in ELPA.

But indeed I've found some code in SLIME and SLY that uses it.
I know the maintainers of these packages well (one of them is
me) and will ensure there is no impact.

> > Do you want me to do either of these 2 things?
> If it isn't infeasible, please do.

OK.

> > I just thought it was simpler to add the cookie.  What's
> > the problem with that?
> Existing files was what I had in mind.

OK. I admit I don't care much about those, but why not...

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

Any problem with doing so? I'll interpret that as a "Yes".

> 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.

Ah, indeed I had misunderstood you.  But what's the point
in having them also in the cookies then?  That bit escapes me.

Anyway, I went and looked at the three files you mention, and
I discovered they're not "fixed" as I thought. They're defcustom
and defined way after auto-mode-alist, so we'd have to add-to-list,
contradicting the advice near auto-mode-alist.  And the only way
we to safely do that add-to-list is to do it from :set  directives
in the defcustom definition that mutates the auto-mode-alist
variable. If it's as complicated as I this, I don't think it's worth it.

So, while I don't oppose doing this, if you really insist I'd
appreciate you tell me how to do it or what you had in mind.

> > 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.

Yes, let's be hopeful, though I don't yet know who cares about
this completeness as much as you.

--
João Távora