Re: [External] : Re: command mode-specificity [was: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change...]

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> >> > Can you provide more than a sample of just 2 libraries?
>> >>
>> >> 5x5.el: 21 commands, 6 non-mode-specific ones.
>> >
>> > I hear "3" libraries.  Do we have a bid for "4"?  More?
>> >
>> > Anecdotal cherries are interesting, but...
>> 
>> Go ahead and pick your own cherries.
>
> I'm not the one claiming that this new (proposed?
> already added?) feature is needed, and that most
> commands are mode-specific.  My guess is that it's
> not needed and most commands are not mode-specific.
>
> You're the one proposing a change.  What's the
> evidence for the need for it?

How do you expect to *prove* to you that I will benefit from the change?

Is there some sort of accepted dialectics for that purpose?

I explained many times, now and on the previous discussion about this
feature long time ago, why it would be so helpful to me that I will be
happy to devote many hours to tag as many commands as possible.

Then you handwave away common-sense arguments as irrelevant or
conflicting with some sort of imagined scenario, or because it goes
against some personal habits of abusing a feature (M-x for remembering
commands instead of C-h a? Seriously? And why that is an impediment for
improving M-x to better function for its stated purpose?)

You don't see a benefit on this feature *for you*. Fair enough. You are
uneasy with the changes on `interactive'. I wholeheartedly sympathize
with you here, for the reasons you expressed and some more. But please
don't come with "what's the evidence for the need of it?", because you
are sending a clear signal about being utterly uninterested on other's
opinions.