Re: Is that change a good idea?

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> > 	* help.el (describe-mode): Allow a :minor-mode-function property to
>> > 	specify a different minor mode toggle function than the variable.
>> > 	* simple.el (auto-fill-function):
>> > 	* subr.el (add-minor-mode): Use it.
>> 
>> > I have my doubts that the resulting flexibility is really in the best
>> > interest of the users...
>> 
>> 100% agreement.
>> It's only meant to clean up the code,

> Wouldn't it be far more cleaner to convert old minor-modes which would
> need this hack to proper minor-modes following standard semantics?

You do realize that there are packages over which we have no control, right?

>> not as a new feature.
> I would guess: when its there, it will be used...
> btw. I posted a patch, convertinge auto-fill-function to a standard
> minor-mode (thus addressing the same problem) earlier this week, but
> got no response -- was it _that_ bad?

No: if it were bad you'd have received complaints.
I thought the code was acceptable, but at the same I found it someone
unsatisfactory because there are then two variables that decide whether the
mode is ON or not: auto-fill-mode and auto-fill-function and you have to
make sure they're kept in sync.  Maybe we could do (defvaralias
'auto-fill-function 'auto-fill-mode) and then slowly change modes
to replace (if auto-fill-function (funcall auto-fill-function)) with
(if auto-fill-mode (funcall normal-auto-fill-function)).


        Stefan