Re: Is there any elisp functions to tell whether the cursor is in a comment block?

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:19:26 +0200, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" 
<lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Drew Adams wrote:
>>> I would suggest a shorter version of the compatibility line, like
>>>    ;; Compatibility: Emacs=20.*,21.*,22.* XEmacs=unknown
>>
> ...
>> That kind of thing is not much of a problem if it is only people that read a
>> Compatibility field. But if tools do that, then there would need to be a
>> well-defined syntax to communicate the various possibilities unambiguously.
>
> Sure.
>
>> `unknown' doesn't seem useful to me. But how should absence be interpreted, 
>> in
>> general: as unknown or incompatible?
>
> Maybe
>
>   ;; Compatible: Emacs=21.*,22.*
>   ;; Incompatible: Emacs=20.*, XEmacs
>
> And absence == unknown.

That's probably a good idea.  Something like the Debian dependency
system, with tags like

    >= GNU Emacs 21.1

may also be nice.  The FreeBSD ports have a ${CONFLICTS} makefile
convention that may be useful too.  The editors/emacs and
editors/emacs-devel ports install files with the same name, so they
include ${CONFLICTS} like this:

    CONFLICTS=  emacs-19.* emacs-21.* emacs-22.* \
                xemacs-[0-9]* xemacs-devel-[0-9]* \
                xemacs-mule-[0-9]* xemacs-devel-mule-[0-9]*

We could probably use something similar to mark up compatibility
comments, i.e.:

    ;; Compatible: emacs-21.*, emacs-22.*, xemacs-21.3
    ;; Incompatible: emacs-19.*, emacs-20.*, xemacs-21.4