From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Re: command mode-specificity [was: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change...] Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:35:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87pn0zfs4u.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87wnv7spji.fsf@gnus.org> <875z2rslqk.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1lfr647.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36905"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:qjQwPRvRcn+LTtbGAaF4o5NsMm8= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 17 01:37:09 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lCAq5-0009Tn-5B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:37:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40396 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCAq3-0008UI-C0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:37:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60796) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCAod-0007uP-Dy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:35:39 -0500 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:45510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lCAob-0008Uc-OE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:35:39 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lCAoZ-0007dy-VO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:35:35 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:264965 Archived-At: Drew Adams 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.