From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Should mode commands be idempotent? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9f11a3c6-b113-4bf6-9dab-f894b2ad77b5@default> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505971362 1303 195.159.176.226 (21 Sep 2017 05:22:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:22:42 +0000 (UTC) To: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 21 07:22:35 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dutwZ-0008Nn-6J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 07:22:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51858 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dutwg-0005lX-FK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:22:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49267) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dutwX-0005kG-0V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:22:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dutwT-000796-1Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:22:33 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:29714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dutwS-00078D-P8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:22:28 -0400 Original-Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v8L5MOjH015789 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:22:26 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v8L5MOU3022629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:22:24 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v8L5MMow007618; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:22:24 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6776.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218619 Archived-At: > > There should be some reasons given for making a change, > > especially a change that attempt to restrict users, > > whether by tooling or convention. >=20 > Philip gave the reason in the first email: "it's generally > expected that mode commands (both major and minor) are > reasonably idempotent". If that's _already_ "generally expected", it's because, as I said, most already _are_ "reasonably idempotent". Since that is already generally expected, and is already the case, I don't see a reason for adding a "requirement" or a "convention" for that. No reason for such a thing has been given, so far. The "reason" you cite just restates the obvious and echoes the status quo, no? A reason is what I'm asking for, not a statement that this is already the case and therefore already generally=20 expected, but a reason why we should make that already=20 typical practice a "requirement" or a "convention". Having a convention that suggests that most modes should be idempotent, when most already are, is like the father of a first-born claiming to have taught his baby to say "papa", whereas it's the other way 'round: the father's word "papa" was invented by babies and taught to parents (and heard by them slightly differently in different languages). It's (already) a de facto rule: just a self-evident truth of experience. Now if you instead were to propose that _all_ modes _must_ then yes, it's likely that that's not currently satisfied. In that case, I'd ask why _all must_. But if not - if all you're requesting is a rule that _most_ _should_, _in general_, then my question is why come up with such a rule? What's it for?