[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: :alnum: broken?
From: |
Mattias Engdegård |
Subject: |
Re: :alnum: broken? |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:43:38 +0100 |
28 feb. 2020 kl. 22.40 skrev Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>:
> No, let's leave the default as it is now. Those who want such
> suspicious regular expressions flagged will customize the variable to
> a non-default value. Like they do with the warning options of a
> compiler.
In Emacs's own compiler, all warnings are on by default:
(defcustom byte-compile-warnings t
"List of warnings that the byte-compiler should issue (t for all).
...
We all agree that this is as it should be, because although experienced users
would know how to enable the warnings, it is those who don't that need them the
most.
- Re: :alnum: broken?, (continued)
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Óscar Fuentes, 2020/02/27
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?,
Mattias Engdegård <=
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Óscar Fuentes, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Óscar Fuentes, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Marcin Borkowski, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Andrea Corallo, 2020/02/29
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/02/29