Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete fast-lock and lazy-lock libraries

[Stefan Kangas]

Hi Alan,

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> > >                             If someone has an ancient .emacs that contains
> > >   (setq font-lock-support-mode 'fast-lock-mode)
> > > would the best thing be to just use jit-lock-mode instead?  If I'm reading
> > > the patch correctly, it would make setting the support-mode to fast-lock
> > > equivalent to setting it to nil.
>
> > Sure, that makes sense. I could change that before pushing.
>
> This doesn't make sense, I think.  font-lock-support-mode is a function,
> and if a user has this set to a non-existent function, the correct
> response is surely to tell her with an error message, rather than
> executing a different function.

Okay, that's a fair point. But if the user has set it to lazy-lock or
fast-lock wouldn't the reason most likely be that it's expected to be
better for normal use? And, if that holds, shouldn't we be a bit
forthcoming by just using the current best, which is jit-lock?

OTOH, I guess that for any other value it is probably best to signal
an error rather than silently defaulting to nil.

Still, I don't have any strong feelings either way. If the consensus
is to signal an error for any other value than jit-lock and nil, I'm
perfectly fine with that too.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas