From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist. Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:13:24 +0200 Message-ID: <858y3bq463.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87zmvu6ba2.fsf@xs4all.nl> <85ll7e68ei.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <854qe2ihhi.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87d5spxzml.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <85k6mxe686.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85pswp9hsu.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85hdi0tp4h.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1114114790 17734 80.91.229.2 (21 Apr 2005 20:19:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:19:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: schwab@suse.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 21 22:19:43 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOi8Y-0006TG-2r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:18:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOiDK-0000Wr-AJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:23:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DOi5V-0002TT-Ng for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:15:49 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DOi5R-0002ST-1Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:15:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOi5Q-00027M-73 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:15:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [151.189.21.43] (helo=mail-in-03.arcor-online.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1DOi6B-0006Er-3Z; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:16:31 -0400 Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (i5387AB2C.versanet.de [83.135.171.44]) by mail-in-03.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7BD162B23; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id BD8801C1E222; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:13:24 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:56:22 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:36254 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:36254 Richard Stallman writes: > Why do we desperately need a special alias just in exactly that > case where it really is likely to cause problems? > > The idea that it "causes problems" is based on a mistaken idea of > how things ought to work. ALL the usual ways of invoking a mode for > TeX should be defined by both AUCTeX and tex-mode.el. It woulod be > a bug if they were different. > > Again: do you have knowledge of even a single instance where > this alias has been used, promoted, or found convenient for or > by as much as a single person? > > If these names are not really used by users, maybe we could these > names in both AUCTeX and tex-mode.el. Well, people use LaTeX-mode and TeX-mode quite a bit when intending to call AUCTeX explicitly, so I would not want to give those bindings up. If I can get a _definite_ promise that tex-mode's aliases on TeX-mode and LaTeX-mode will stay in place (as long as the AUCTeX maintainer of the day is throwing a tantrum when necessary to remind people), then I would be fine with letting AUCTeX merely overload tex-mode, latex-mode and plain-tex-mode and not touching the aliases (which makes unloading cleaner as that does not then automatically and inappropriately undefine aliases unnecessarily duplicated by AUCTeX). May I build a scheme around that assumption? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum