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

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

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

>> I explained already why nothing else makes sense.  AUCTeX makes
>> extensive use of mode cookies in local variables, and those are only
>> obeyed in the lowercase version.  The choice of AUCTeX vs tex-mode is
>> a user preference and should not be embedded into files.
>
> 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.  The invocation "LaTeX-mode" installs latex-mode with
AUCTeX keybindings, syntax tables, mode hooks and variables.

>> I am still thinking about whether to keep the current scheme which
>> has tex-mode as the main function and TeX-mode as an alias into it,
>> or switch that around.
>
> I'll very much vote in favor of switching it around.

Noted in case that my indecision is not resolved by other
considerations.

>> The problem with a switch is that "autoload" will not replace
>> aliases, and so I can't replace the Emacs default scheme by just
>> specifying new autoloads.
>
> Indeed, as shown in my sample auctex-override.el you just have to
> explicitly fmakunbound them before setting up the autoload.  No
> biggie, tho.

Except that it makes it harder to have unload-feature restore the
state previous to the loading.

In short, it seems to complicate achieving a clean switch between
tex-mode.el and AUCTeX, but it seems like a somewhat more natural
starting positiong when one indeed wants to employ both modes in a
single session.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum