GNU bug report logs - #78810
30.1; `pp' expectation of `emacs-lisp-mode-syntax-table' etc.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, "78810 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <78810 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: bug#78810: 30.1; `pp' expectation of `emacs-lisp-mode-syntax-table' etc.
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:02:13 -0400

> I didn't miss that the first `cond' branch was presumably
> _intended_ to be only an optimization.  I don't think it
> always has the same behavior (result) as the second branch,
> and I do think it's bugged.

I did get that impression but you don't show any evidence for it.

> And the defcustom isn't solid, and the doc and names are poor.

I don't know what "solid" means here.  w.r.t names, I'm not sure a new
name would be sufficiently better to justify the cost of renaming.

> You don't respond to any of the questions.

Didn't see any.  I guess they were too far drowned within lots of
other elements.

> For example, is it necessary (or even desirable) for Elisp code in
> a buffer with `lisp-data-mode' to use the second (unoptimized)
> `cond' clause?

I don't know.  Do you have any concrete data for or against it?

> Is `lisp-indent-function' for `indent-line-function'
> really needed (why)?

Does it matter?  Again, some concrete data would help.

> If so, tell users of the defcustom.

Why should they care?


        Stefan

Previous Next

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