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 20:24:55 +0200 Message-ID: <83h7mb98g8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20210213141225.11309.86562@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> <834kic9g0a.fsf@gnu.org> <8735xwvusc.fsf@gnus.org> <83v9as7xns.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn10ueld.fsf@gnus.org> <83r1lf9apm.fsf@gnu.org> <87a6s3vrnd.fsf@gnus.org> <83o8gj9a8o.fsf@gnu.org> <871rdfvq86.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4821"; 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 19:25:59 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 1lC52t-00018R-AJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:25:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48194 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC52s-0002Zz-Bu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:25:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33852) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC51l-0001iw-UU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:24:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57562) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC51l-00075p-Ia; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:24:49 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1328 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lC51k-0002pF-Eo; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:24:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871rdfvq86.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:10:01 +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:264910 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:10:01 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Looking at it from another aspect: don't you agree that the > > alternative solutions are less intrusive? They introduce neither new > > syntax nor new semantics, they just use existing facilities. Thus, > > those alternatives don't increase complexity as much as the new arg of > > 'interactive'. It is advantageous to have a solution with less > > complexity. > > But that's a different discussion. > > I take it that the conclusion to the question I asked ("is there a point > to having the .elc files be compatible when the .el files aren't?") is > "no, there's no point in that". > > Are we in agreement on that? No, we are not. > The other question you're now re-asking is: Does it make sense to > introduce a new `interactive' form? > > And I've argued that point repeatedly, and I don't really wish to repeat > myself. I can do so if you think it would help, though -- just let me > know. I just cannot understand why you insist on this solution as the only one, when there are others that can do the job without the downsides. Is "compromise" a dirty word or something?