[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:08:23 +0300 |
> From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:03:01 +0100
> Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie>, Stefan Monnier
> <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
> Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>, 40573@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov
> <dgutov@yandex.ru>
>
> > Thanks. The backward-incompatible change in lisp-mode-variables is
> > something I'd like to avoid. Is it really necessary?
>
> What is it backward-incompatible to? As far as I can tell, it's an
> internal lisp routine, not called by any code outside of Emacs core.
It isn't internal judging by its symbol, so it would be good not to
break compatibility, I think.
> If you're talking strictly about about keeping the calling convention
> for any hypothetical user code that might be relying on it, we can
> add `&rest dummy`. But I can't really see the why.
It's just good practice. It prevents us from dealing with later
complaints and bug reports about breaking someone's code.
> Do you want me to do either of these 2 things?
If it isn't infeasible, please do.
> > The tramp-persistency-file-name has a known fixed file name; why not
> > add it to auto-mod-alist? Likewise with eww's eww-bookmarks and
> > saveplace's save-place-file (2 standard names).
>
> I just thought it was simpler to add the cookie. What's
> the problem with that?
Existing files was what I had in mind.
> Anyway, I can surely switch to auto-mode-alist if you
> insist, no problem. Do you insist in this?
Do I have to insist?
In any case, I didn't mean to use auto-mode-alist _instead_ odf adding
the cookie automatically, I meant to do it in addition.
> If you do use and know some of these files, I think I've shown
> how trivial it is to make them use lisp-data-mode.
Sorry, I don't have time to do that research for now. Hopefully,
someone else will be able to do that.
Thanks.
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, (continued)
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/17
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/17
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/17
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/17
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/17
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/17
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/17
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/04/18
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/19
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/04/19
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, João Távora, 2020/04/19
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/04/19
- bug#40573: 27.0.90; flymake-mode broken in scratch buffer, Stefan Monnier, 2020/04/18