[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mode lines
- To: RWK at MIT-MC
- Subject: Re: mode lines
- From: George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>
- Date: Mon ,26 Jan 81 10:55:00 EDT
- Cc: LISP-FORUM at MIT-MC
I'm not against mode lines per say, I just think the present
implementation is un-necessarily crufty, really a relic from
ITS Emacs, and one which would take extra amounts of code to implement
in maclisp, finally arriving and an inferior and weak feature.
I have nothing against putting
(-*- Mode Lisp Package Macsyma Syntax Old Base 8 -*-) in a file.
And I fail to see the objection a Tex user would have for
%% (-*- Mode Tex -*-)
or the macsyma user for /* (-*- Mode Macsyma -*-) */
My argument is simply that the above is easier to parse,
for human or computer, than
;;; -*- Mode: Lisp; Package Macsyma; Base 8 -*-
which looks more like the syntax of Algol.
What could be the objection to supporting a sharp-sign
feature which controlled read syntax? e.g.
#S(Mode Lisp Package Macsyma Syntax Old Base 8)
%% #S(Mode Tex)
/* #S(Mode Macsyma) */
The argument is "why cruft up your lisp world, the one in which
most of your work is done, with notions and features which are
not native to it, which are difficult to support in the mother
tongue (i.e. Maclisp)?"
The claim is that in this climate of many suggested changes,
for example "/" <=> "\", there should be some interest
in increasing the power of features which can be use insulate
innocent users from changes. Recall Moons note where he
announced a new "modeline" feature for the Lispm, he
dismissed the poor maclisp users with the statement,
I guess there will be more of a problem doing this in maclisp.
I think that is a callous and unimaginative attitude.
[Alan, who has expressed favour for the status-quo on the
"/" issue certainly doesn't address the transportable modeline
problem with arguments which start off by talking about
the taking of long walks and floating.]