[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MMM] Re: narrow-to-here-document
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: [MMM] Re: narrow-to-here-document |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:44:39 -0400 |
The complementary approach is to have many small buffers and do the
editing there, but have one big buffer which serves as a view into
the many small buffers. This approach has been suggested by
Richard.
I think I see a misunderstanding, because this is not what I meant to
suggest. I suggested pseudo-indirect buffers as a way of being able
to deal with the same text using different key bindings, different
buffer-local values, different major modes. In effect, they are
themes for bindings. They would all share the same text, just as
user-visible indirect buffers do.
The idea of splitting up the text into many small buffers which would
be virtually concatenated is a completely different one. I think that
idea is a non-starter because it would require changing nearly every
Emacs primitive in a very complex way.
Maybe it is sufficient to just allow for ignoring parts of the
buffer. Let's say you are mixing modes A and B. Let's further say
that each A chunk needs to be considered separately, and all the B
chunks should be considered to be concatenated (as in the literate
programming case). Then you would arrange things so that when point
is in an A region all the rest of the buffer is ignored. And when
point is in a B region then all A regions are ignored, but the other
B regions are not ignored.
This has the merit that we could implement it for syntax parsing
and font lock without changing most of Emacs at all.