Re: Suggestion for hl-line.el

[Lute Kamstra]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:

>> Do you want that changing hl-line-sticky takes effect immediately,
>> or the next time the mode is turned on?  The first case would
>> require an unhighlight function on pre-command-hook whenever
>> hl-line-mode is turned on.  Just in case sticky is set to t.  The
>> second case can, in case hl-line-sticky is t, do without an
>> unhighlight function on pre-command-hook, which should be faster.
>
> It's up to you.  If I were you I'd ask the user to re-exec
> hl-line-mode for a new value of hl-line-sticky to take effect.
>
>>> Better yet: make the buffer-local mode sticky, but the global mode
>>> non-sticky.
>>
>> Do you like to have this behavior instead of a hl-line-sticky
>> variable (easier), or in addition to such a variable (more
>> difficult)?
>
> Probably "instead".  But here again it's up to you.
>
>> The global mode is currently defined in terms of the local mode
>> (courtesy of easy-mmode-define-global-mode).  I don't easily see how a
>> non-sticky global mode can piggyback on a sticky local mode like that,
>> so it probably needs to be implemented directly.
>
> I think the global mode should be implemented directly, using the
> global part of post/pre-command-hook.  But guess what.... it's up to
> you ;-)

Well, if it's up to me...  I like the idea of one local mode that is
governed by a hl-line-sticky-flag variable and one non-sticky global
mode that is implemented directly.  I guess nobody will want to use a
sticky global mode.

Is it OK if I boldly go ahead and commit such a change?

Lute.