[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question)
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question) |
Date: |
22 Jul 2003 14:06:26 +0900 |
"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> Many systems that offer inheritence take the view that there is
> a single "root" and that you necessarily inherit from somewhere.
> That's the reason why it doesn't bother me to say that every major
> mode is derived from another.
How about:
(defalias 'define-major-mode 'define-derived-mode)
After all, major modes are major modes, whether derived or not; really
I'd think this name would be a bit clearer than the current one, and
it's natural enough to use `nil' for PARENT for non-derived modes.
-Miles
--
80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen
- Re: run-mode-hooks, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/16
- Emacs design question (was: run-mode-hooks), Kai Großjohann, 2003/07/16
- Re: Emacs design question (was: run-mode-hooks), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/20
- define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Stefan Monnier, 2003/07/21
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question),
Miles Bader <=
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/23
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Miles Bader, 2003/07/23
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Stefan Monnier, 2003/07/23
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Miles Bader, 2003/07/23
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/25
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/24
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/24
- Re: define-derived-mode again (was: Emacs design question), Richard Stallman, 2003/07/22