Differences between rustic.el and rust-mode.el

[tarsius]

These commits are not intended to be merged.

This demonstrates what differences remain between rustic.el and rust-mode.el after merging

• Separate the major-mode parts from the additional functionality brotzeit/rustic#246
• Separate the major-mode parts from the additional functionality #406

(All the commits from #406 are included here as well.)

See #405 for an overview.

This pull-request was created by:

1. Applying the above pull-requests.

2. Evaluating:

   (progn
     (copy-file "~/.emacs.d/lib/rustic/rustic.el"
                "~/.emacs.d/lib/rust-mode/rust-mode.el"
                t)
     (with-current-buffer
         (find-file-noselect "~/.emacs.d/lib/rust-mode/rust-mode.el")
       (save-excursion
         (goto-char (point-min))
         (save-excursion (replace-regexp ":group 'rustic" ":group 'rust-mode"))
         (save-excursion (replace-regexp "rustic-mode" "rust-mode"))
         (save-excursion (replace-regexp "rustic" "rust"))
         (save-excursion (replace-regexp "\"1.2\"" "\"0.6.0\"")))))

3. Manually spitting the differences across multiple commits.

[rust-highfive]

r? @brotzeit

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[brotzeit]

@tarsius can you please open another pull request that only contains the commits that moves code to other files, this way I still got the diffs(thanks for that).

[brotzeit]

Ah you did that already, thanks :P

[brotzeit]

Instead you recommitted each commit (changing the committer name and date). I would like to understand why you do that because I cannot see any benefits (except for the one that you could instead get by using a merge commit).

I was told by several people in the past that performing a "rebase and merge"(in github) is the way to go since you don't have the merge commit and get a cleaner history ?

[tarsius]

What do you want to do about the commands that rustic no longer defines in rustic.el:

• *-beginning-of-defun
• *-end-of-defun
• *-indent-line + helper functions

Should we do the same for rust-mode and move them to a separate library as you did with rustic-interactive.el. (But i would name it rust-commands.el; *-interactive.el is unusual.) Or should we instead move these commands back into rust-mode.el?

I looked at the differences and they are not big, so after a bit of backward and/or forward porting rustic can use the commands from rust-mode. I guess that means moving the commands back into rust-mode.el would be preferable. In any case I would like to first decide which package we rearrange to make it more like the other.

I favor moving these shared commands back into rustic.el.

[brotzeit]

This pull request helped a lot, thanks again.

[tarsius]

Great :)