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 19:46:15 +0200 Message-ID: <83o8gj9a8o.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> <834kic9g0a.fsf@gnu.org> <8735xwvusc.fsf@gnus.org> <83v9as7xns.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn10ueld.fsf@gnus.org> <83r1lf9apm.fsf@gnu.org> <87a6s3vrnd.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38496"; 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 18:49:12 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 1lC4TH-0009rT-U2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:49:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40918 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4TH-0001G9-0N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:49:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49148) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4Qd-0008Hh-Gv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:46:27 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56925) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4Qd-0002PL-9O; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:46:27 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2528 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lC4QI-0002DX-WD; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:46:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87a6s3vrnd.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:39:18 +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:264904 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:39:18 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Why it's important that commands loaded from .elc files are backwards > >> compatible when commands loaded from .el files aren't, for instance. > > > > The command's body is the same, so it is IMO a disadvantage to have a > > .elc file that can only be loaded by Emacs >= 28. > > The .elc file can be loaded fine -- the only incompatibility is in the > interactive spec bit (both in the .el file and in the .elc file). > > So "not backwards compatible bytecode" is perhaps overstating the case. I don't think I agree. 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.