GNU bug report logs - #70589
[PATCH] Refine the Custom type of generated '*-modes' options

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 70589 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 70589 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#70589: [PATCH] Refine the Custom type of generated
 '*-modes' options
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:24:42 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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

>> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
>> Cc: 70589 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
>> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:13:37 +0200
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Why does it make sense to have the "all" and "none" alternatives
>> > twice?
>> 
>> These are slightly different: a value of t ("Enable in all major modes")
>> says to enable everywhere, while a t inside a list ("All major modes")
>> says to enable in modes that were not mentioned earlier in the list (so
>> putting t in the end of the list means "otherwise, enable").  Similarly
>> for the "none" alternatives: a value of nil ("Don't enable...") means we
>> never enable the minor mode, while the effect of a nil inside the list
>> is relative to the previous elements, and means "otherwise, don't".
>> Does that make sense?
>
> It might make sense, if we change the labels to say what you tell
> above.
>
> Thanks.

OK, here's an updated patch with revised labels:

[v2-0001-Refine-the-Custom-type-of-generated-modes-options.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

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