From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change command to interactive ... modes Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:41:41 +0200 Message-ID: <834kic9g0a.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20210213141225.11309.86562@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210213141226.EEDFE20999@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <47209379-76df-4c97-e5ff-b3b04da0db1d@yandex.ru> <87zh07of0e.fsf@gnus.org> <0605ed62-a785-d190-caf2-2232e1db3b0f@yandex.ru> <87mtw6d480.fsf@gnus.org> <87eehid3k2.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1liblzb.fsf@gnus.org> <83y2fq9f0v.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0r8xl7y.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9134"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 16 16:42:05 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lC2UH-0002HQ-AR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:42:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39050 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC2UG-0001sY-5K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:42:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50698) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC2Tm-0001Sr-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:41:34 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:53437) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC2Tl-0002ku-NX; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:41:33 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2848 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lC2Tl-0006Qi-88; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:41:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87k0r8xl7y.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:15:13 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:264890 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: Stefan Kangas , emacs-devel@gnu.org, > dgutov@yandex.ru > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:15:13 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Isn't this a bit premature? I thought we were still debating how best > > to implement the annotations? > > The discussion seems to have evaporated, so... Without any conclusions. I'm still worried about the incompatibility we are introducing into byte code, and so were a couple of others. You dismissed those concerns, and I frankly don't understand how they can be dismissed. To me, the proposed alternatives sound like a clear win, since the downsides are non-existent, whereas the advantage is clear. Why do we need to insist on introducing bytecode incompatibility?