Andrew Gwozdziewycz on 8 Jul 2008 06:29:59 -0700 |
So, do these enhancements benefit the entire perl community? If so, would it be useful to temporarily fork cperl-mode and integrate them into it and maybe then merged back into the distributed cperl-mode? The derived mode seems like a good approach, but you're probably unlikely to get much traction. cperl-mode already has a major audience, enhancing it itself will get you fame, fortune and lots of women. Andrew 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 >> > -- Andrew Gwozdziewycz apgwoz@gmail.com http://www.apgwoz.com | http://www.photub.com
|
|