From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 0161c9d 1/2: Load all generic-x.el modes unconditionally Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:38:31 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20210209160550.18823.10795@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210209160551.832FB20AD1@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87o8gti2ln.fsf@gnus.org> <83sg65jffx.fsf@gnu.org> <83im71j96z.fsf@gnu.org> <83czx8k3gn.fsf@gnu.org> <83sg64hqzj.fsf@gnu.org> <83im6zj1bo.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24729"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 11 15:39:23 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 1lAD7q-0006Jp-UW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:39:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44940 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAD7q-00077D-1F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:39:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34696) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAD75-000641-Q5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:38:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-f176.google.com ([209.85.215.176]:33420) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAD74-0000GX-6q; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:38:35 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-f176.google.com with SMTP id e7so4029635pge.0; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 06:38:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rfygFglujkHlpjidcsc7COyyMuTeLwLLdC9n372vxkE=; b=JJDv0xCI5Kcs//JaKB3lqokuvBLQwWuFJO2DZqZVH/Y5keIM57NUqAwl621eu0O9r9 0lvXk7Tmp0veRmFEEKZL0ji54jqjilXJcXuRi0hiEG9zAGxIGskm17mMTvkRXyzoglRE fM+XJuRuIDUCGyqMxlHcxQiXt9JnwgT4BqCl1DPYkEeoKcl0Yavzxz3llr611uEcTqQE qt2t3qYPXgoaDcHG5QSpkkFDjiM2r4xEc/a2S9oXiTPxBGugEdBLjznkt5IdKsztvm58 MA1rizd5fFHzduonYhIVY63ghll53frmPkQppUmNAvNpcQWndYeWQwnBGiqWqVxX0Vjr qxWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Ke1K1xegKkAEzjwmK0WluzY5Xb04vZaSENHt5mbYMX4FlUzrb m9gZQNZyLUgVVrvpGLgJrLT/SPFxqP9U42tEKvq1JKwI X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQPrP6Eiv7RNsvLEfuZZ2ZqIFMB+vAtts/oyK12sUYKKlkpqOxiJs+Gn8XCZc263NMef7DZDA4MX+DHCQtDYA= X-Received: by 2002:a63:e0c:: with SMTP id d12mr8583723pgl.67.1613054312295; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 06:38:32 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:38:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.176; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-f176.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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:264383 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Users might not want some file suddenly turn on a mode the user didn't >> intend to use. I don't understand what else there is to explain here, >> really. > > I thought you were talking about modes being defined, for which I don't > see any harm. But indeed, the changes to `auto-mode-alist` imply > a change in behavior which could I guess be annoying (especially since > those modes are quite primitive). I admit that I still don't see the benefit of not just activating all these modes. Why would the user not want to use these modes? They may not be very impressive, but surely they are better than nothing. If they are not better than nothing, they should probably better be removed. What am I missing? > My problem was with conditionally defining the modes, not with > conditionally activating them. So if we restore the config var but make > it apply only to the `auto-mode-alist` changes, then I think we'll all > be happy. > > Stefan K, could you do that? I'm actually more inclined to revert the previous commit. But I'm again wondering: why not just ask users that don't want one or more of these modes to remove them from auto-mode-alist?