GNU bug report logs - #62677
Merge flyspell-mode with flyspell-prog-mode

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, 62677 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#62677: Merge flyspell-mode with flyspell-prog-mode
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 09:29:23 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Looks good in general, but why deprecate and de-document
> flyspell-prog-mode?  I can easily envision a major mode that doesn't
> inherit from prog-mode, but still has defined syntax for comments and
> strings: why not let users invoke flyspell-prog-mode in those cases?

Shouldn't such modes simply be added to the new
`flyspell-programming-mode-list' variable?

Or do you envision situations where which one is "best" will be a matter
of user preference?  If yes, we should of course keep them both.

If not, I think it makes sense to have just the one command, because it
is simpler.  This is what I had in mind.

> Moreover, users might have customizations that reference
> flyspell-prog-mode, and I see no reason to annoy them with obsoletion
> warnings.

This will not be relevant if we're keeping both commands, but just in
case:

You're right that such warnings would be a nuisance, and not really
worth it.  That's why I chose to document it as deprecated, without any
warnings.  We could also remove the sentence saying that it will be
marked as obsolete.

> IOW, we just made the users' lives easier by automatically activating
> flyspell-prog-mode when we know it's appropriate, we are not saying
> that what flyspell-prog-mode does is incorrect or suboptimal.

This seems to suggest that you envision that users might want to use one
or the other, at least in some cases.  That's perfectly fine by me, if
that's the case.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.