Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist.

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    The only conceivable way they could be called unwittingly by a user is
    if a TeX file from somebody else contained a "mode: TeX" or "mode:
    LaTeX" specification.

The reason they would be used if some users types M-x TeX mode.
It seemed plausible to me that some users would do that.
It could be that nobody ever does.

In any case, it seems clear to me that AUCTeX and tex-mode.el are
alternative implementations of the same feature.  It is right that the
same names are used to invoke them both.  Some users choose AUCTeX,
some choose tex-mode.el, but they all want the same set of files to be
handled by their choice.

So they SHOULD be invoked by the same names.

    I explained already why nothing else makes sense.  AUCTeX makes
    extensive use of mode cookies in local variables, and those are only
    obeyed in the lowercase version.  The choice of AUCTeX vs tex-mode is
    a user preference and should not be embedded into files.

That is right.

It would be feasible to set up AUCTeX and tex-mode.el so that they
have no overlap except for the primary entry points, which are
tex-mode etc. and TeX-mode etc.  However, it makes no sense for their
primary entry points to be different.  Whichever primary entry points
are right for one of them are right for the other.  They should all
invoke whichever package the user prefers.


Someone has suggested a separate package that would "select" AUCTeX,
and to unload it to select tex-mode.el.  The goal make sense, but
there should be no need to ever unload this package.  Once loaded, it
could select one package or the other according to one or more user
option variables.  To select one package or the other, you would just
set the variables, so you would not need to unload it.

However, this package and its user options could just as well be
included in AUCTeX.  I see no benefit in making it a separate file.