GNU bug report logs - #68246
30.0.50; Add non-TS mode as extra parent of TS modes

Previous Next

Full log

Message #200 received at 68246 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
Cc: joaotavora <at> gmail.com, 68246 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, casouri <at> gmail.com,
 stefankangas <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#68246: 30.0.50; Add non-TS mode as extra parent of TS modes
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 05:27:40 +0200

> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:05:43 +0200
> Cc: 68246 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, casouri <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
>  joaotavora <at> gmail.com
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
> 
> On 08/01/2024 21:57, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Stefan Kangas<stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 11:18:41 -0800
> >> Cc:68246 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,casouri <at> gmail.com,joaotavora <at> gmail.com
> >>
> >> Eli Zaretskii<eliz <at> gnu.org>  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?

Previous Next

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