Subject: bug#68246: 30.0.50; Add non-TS mode as extra parent of TS modes

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 05:27:40 +0200

> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:05:43 +0200
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
>  [email-masked]
> From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
> 
> On 08/01/2024 21:57, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Stefan Kangas<[email-masked]>
> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 11:18:41 -0800
> >> Cc:[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked]
> >>
> >> Eli Zaretskii<[email-masked]>  writes:
> >>
> >>> Please don't call it "language".  That'd be confusing.  LSP is about
> >>> programming languages, so "language" is natural there.  But in Emacs,
> >>> a major mode is more general than that.  For example, it is not
> >>> unthinkable to consider mail-mode to be the extra-parent of
> >>> message-mode (or vice versa) -- but what is the "language" in that
> >>> case?
> >> Isn't the language for such modes in this paradigm just the empty set?
> > No.  The "language" there is "text", except that it's silly to call
> > that "language".
> 
> If it was just "text", we wouldn't need different highlighting rules in 
> message-mode or log-edit-mode, would we?

Why don't you ask the same about perl-mode and cperl-mode?  Or about
c-mode and c-ts-mode?