Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist.

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> I of course understand why it would override them, but not why it
>>> would set major-mode to `latex-mode' rather than to `LaTeX-mode'.
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, LaTeX-mode is the AUCTeX major mode, while
>>> latex-mode can be either, depending on the user's preference.
>
>> You are confusing the value of the major-mode variable with the
>> invocation.
>
> No such confusion: I'm quite aware of the difference.  I may be
> misrepresenting things because looking at the current auctex CVS code
> I can't see where LaTeX-mode is defined.
>
> The variable `major-mode' *should* hold the function corresponding
> to this invocation, so you can return to the current major mode by
> calling it.

There is no point in using both latex-mode and LaTeX-mode to mean
something differently.  There is a (albeit minor) point to using both
plain-tex-mode from tex-mode.el and LaTeX-mode from AUCTeX, though.

> It's used for C-h m for example, and probably by other things
> (e.g. clone-buffer, maybe mmm-mode, some hacks to "temporarily
> switch major mode", ...).
>
>> The invocation "LaTeX-mode" installs latex-mode with AUCTeX
>> keybindings, syntax tables, mode hooks and variables.
>
> In my opinion, calling LaTeX-mode should install LaTeX-mode.

That would mean that pretty much all mode-sensitive functions from
AUCTeX would break if you tried using them in a latex-mode started
session and vice versa.  I don't see the point in providing different
function bindings to latex-mode and LaTeX-mode.

>> Except that it makes it harder to have unload-feature restore the
>> state previous to the loading.
>
> Yes, but you can't rely on unload-feature restoring the previous
> state anyway because it's broken, so it's not like it makes things
> worse.

I am relying on that part of the behavior that is not broken.  If I
insisted on using and programming for only systems that are completely
unbroken in all respects, I'd not be using a computer.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum