> Lift define-prefix-command to Lisp
Thanks.
How 'bout obsoleting it while we're at it?
Stefan
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> Lift define-prefix-command to Lisp
>
> Thanks.
>
> How 'bout obsoleting it while we're at it?
Indeed, I was thinking about it. But I didn't yet have time to fully
study the implications. Is there any reason for or benefit to its
gymnastics?
>>> Lift define-prefix-command to Lisp
>> How 'bout obsoleting it while we're at it?
> Indeed, I was thinking about it. But I didn't yet have time to fully
> study the implications. Is there any reason for or benefit to its
> gymnastics?
Not that I know,
Stefan
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:01:50 -0600
>
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>
> >> Lift define-prefix-command to Lisp
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > How 'bout obsoleting it while we're at it?
>
> Indeed, I was thinking about it. But I didn't yet have time to fully
> study the implications. Is there any reason for or benefit to its
> gymnastics?
This question is pertinent when someone suggests a new function or
feature. When talking about obsoleting an existing one, the right
question is "does it do any harm, or do a bad job, or present some
significant maintenance burden?"
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> This question is pertinent when someone suggests a new function or
> feature. When talking about obsoleting an existing one, the right
> question is "does it do any harm, or do a bad job, or present some
> significant maintenance burden?"
In this case, it seems that this "feature" is indeed doing a bad job.
To put it more clearly, it seems to be doing some convoluted gymnastics
that are no longer necessary. Hysterical raisins?
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:51:38 -0600
> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > This question is pertinent when someone suggests a new function or
> > feature. When talking about obsoleting an existing one, the right
> > question is "does it do any harm, or do a bad job, or present some
> > significant maintenance burden?"
>
> In this case, it seems that this "feature" is indeed doing a bad job.
Which job does it do badly, and why?