Re: You don't understand. I'm not locked up in here with all of you. You're all locked up in here with me."

["Jason Stelzer" <jason.stelzer@gmail.com>]

I have no experience doing it, but you're definitely on the right
track with the derived major mode. Some of the functionality and key
bindings are a bit much for a proper minor mode and as you've pointed
out, you already need cperl mode. So this is just my ++ to your
sentiment.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Joshua Crean <joshua.crean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> well since no one seems to have any objections.... :)
>
> I've just started porting our elisp utils to an emacs mode. I've been
> reading the documentation in the online gnu elisp reference manual
> (http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/elisp.html) and it almost
> seems like we may want to actually create a derived major mode instead
> of a minor mode.
>
> Minor modes are supposed to be independant of any other major/minor
> modes, but many of our utilities are dependant on cperl-mode
> functionality. So it sounds like what we could do is create a major
> mode that derives from cperl-mode and adds the additional
> functionality (see
> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Derived-Modes.html#Derived-Modes)
>
> Just wanted to start throwing some initial thoughts out there.
> Thoughts? Anyone else have experience with doing this?
>
> -Josh
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kyle R. Burton <kyle.burton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, it looks like Josh and I are going to embark on refactoring some
>> elisp so it's less specific to our current environment and so it's
>> more generic and re-useable (extensible).  Josh has created a google
>> code project:
>>
>>  http://code.google.com/p/perl-devel-mode/
>>
>> and we've uploaded some broken code to it.  Our plans are to turn it
>> into a full blown mode, taking inspiration from cperl-mode and
>> paredit-mode (we've already got a very rudimentary kill-expression
>> which has helped our productivity).  Anyone else willing to give
>> guidance as we start on the path of making it into a mode?
>>
>> Also, why aren't we using this list to talk about FP?  Is the group
>> good if we use it to discuss what we're doing in elisp?  Not pure FP,
>> but still a lisp.
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Kyle
>>
>



-- 
J.