[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch
From: |
Joe Kelsey |
Subject: |
Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch |
Date: |
21 Apr 2003 18:30:58 -0700 |
On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 17:45, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Couldn't you get the same result with the old code
> > by writing @ _?
>
> Here is a patch to add - as an alternate skeleton character. - operates
> exactly as _ in setting skeleton-point, but does not interact with the
> region wrapping effects.
>
> I don't want to say this is a bad idea, but before we consider it,
> could you possibly tell me the answer to my question? Is @ in the new
> behavior equivalent to @ _ with the old behavior of @? If not, could
> someone tell me why not?
The original behavior of @, as coded by Daniel Pfeiffer, was to *only*
set skeleton positions. The original behavior of _ was twofold: one, to
set skeleton-point (the first occurrence of _ sets skeleton-point), and
two to mark positions for wrapping the skeleton around regions popped
off a stack (actually, the normal region markers).
Stefan added a second behavior for @, to have the first occurrence of
either @ or _ set skeleton-point, the position point goes to after
skeleton insertion. This new behavior for @ broke the semantics for
skeletons which use _ to set skeleton-point and @ to only set
skeleton-positions.
The behavior I propose adds a new character whose only purpose is to
provide an alternate method to set skeleton-point without interacting
with regions at all. Therefore, the proposal I have made will set
skeleton-point to the first occurrence of either - or _ while preserving
the original semantics of both @ and _ otherwise.
> Perhaps the "region wrapping effects" make them different--if so, that
> might explain how your answer relates to my question--but I don't know
> if that is true.
>
The issue Stefan wanted to address was the ability to set skeleton-point
without interacting with the region effects. Unfortunately, his change
broke the original semantics of @. It could be argued that it also
broke the original semantics of _, but it is apparantly a benign issue
since _ started with multiple uses and continues with multiple uses
under the new system. Instead of overloading @ with a new use, we
simply add a new character to take the role Stefan wanted to put on @.
Is this clear enough?
/Joe
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, (continued)
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/13
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/20
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/21
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/21
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/22
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/22
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/21
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch,
Joe Kelsey <=
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/23
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Joe Kelsey, 2003/04/24
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/25
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/28
- Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, a new patch, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/29
Re: skeleton.el _ versus @, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/02