[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#57502: 29.0.50; Issue with `or' clause of buffer-match-p
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
bug#57502: 29.0.50; Issue with `or' clause of buffer-match-p |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:30:23 +0000 |
Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 12:50, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:
>
>> That might look something like this:
>>
> [...]
>> + (`(derived-mode . ,mode)
>> + (provided-mode-derived-p
>> + (buffer-local-value 'major-mode buffer)
>> + mode))
>
> On a tangent, wouldn't it be nice to allow a list of modes? That is,
>
>> + (`(derived-mode . ,modes)
>> + (apply #'provided-mode-derived-p
>> + (buffer-local-value 'major-mode buffer)
>> + modes))
>
> (with some extra care to keep backwards compatibility).
Intuitively I feel as though this could be more problematic/confusing
than convenient. If this is done, then it should be supported in every
case, so that
(and (derived-mode foo-mode)
(major-mode . bar-mode))
(I know this is a stupid example) doesn't make someone want to try
(and (derived-mode foo-mode)
(major-mode bar-mode))
and be confused why it fails.