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: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:57:29 +0200 Message-ID: <85k6mxe686.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1114025664 5880 80.91.229.2 (20 Apr 2005 19:34:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:34:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl, rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 20 21:34:21 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOKx1-0007ck-6K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:33:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOL1a-0002BJ-FD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:38:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DOL1P-0002B4-Er for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:38:03 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DOL1N-0002Ad-Ra for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:38:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOL1N-00026U-N8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:38:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [151.189.21.46] (helo=mail-in-06.arcor-online.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1DOL1U-00040Q-6Y; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:38:08 -0400 Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (i53879BBD.versanet.de [83.135.155.189]) by mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27648115ADE; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:24:00 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 61EDF1CE0B30; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Andreas Schwab In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:25:50 +0200") 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:36188 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:36188 Andreas Schwab writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: > >> I think the above is a good reason why "TeX-mode" and "LaTeX-mode" >> belong to AUCTeX rather than to tex-mode.el. > > tex-mode.el is using TeX-mode since the beginning, and LaTeX-mode since > 1986. "Is using" is an exaggeration. I checked out version 1.1 (from 1990), and the only "uses" for it are the aliases. I doubt that this has ever been different (in spite of the following changelog entries), but if somebody has older versions around, he can check this for historical accuracy. Even if at one time before 1990 it might have been the case that the mode was not merely aliased, I doubt that pre-1990 compatibility is a major concern nowadays. > 1985-09-29 Richard M. Stallman (rms@mit-prep) > > * tex-mode.el: > New file, containing TeX-mode. > > 1986-08-28 Richard M. Stallman (rms@prep) > > * loaddefs.el: Autoload plain-TeX-mode and LaTeX-mode. > Define aliases for them. Fix doc for TeX-mode. > > Andreas. So do you have _any_ positive evidence that _anybody_ is using these aliases these days? They are not mentioned in the documentation, and retaining them for the mere purpose to maybe fool people into doing something imprudent does not seem really that useful. As I said already: for historical reasons I have to deal with those aliases anyway, so I don't depend on this being changed. But can you really think of a single actual case where they would be or have been of actual advantage to anybody? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum