[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Extending define-derived-mode
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
Re: Extending define-derived-mode |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Jun 2023 08:30:00 +0000 |
Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
> When we were adding tree-sitter modes a couple of month ago, it was
> clear that the current major mode model needs some upgrade, I’d like
> to discuss the things we need and how can we address them.
Perhaps this is a stupid suggestion (since I am permanently behind on
developments wrt. tree-sitter), but might it be that the notions of
"major modes" just aren't strong enough of an abstraction to talk about
languages? Just like we have user options that have a relation to
regular variables, wouldn't it make sense to provide something like
"language modes" that would provide a higher-level and a more
specialised vocabulary.
This might also tie into the issue of inconsistent bindings for
semantically "analogous" operations between major modes (compiling,
opening a REPL, requesting documentation, etc.) or the issues of
duplicate configurations options that all raise the barrier when trying
out a new major mode or switching between languages.
- Re: Extending define-derived-mode, (continued)
Re: Extending define-derived-mode, Yuan Fu, 2023/06/02
Re: Extending define-derived-mode, Theodor Thornhill, 2023/06/01
Re: Extending define-derived-mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/06/01
Re: Extending define-derived-mode,
Philip Kaludercic <=