Re: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change command to interactive ... modes

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Hello, Lars.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 23:00:30 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> > I think these nano-issues, if they are issues at all, don't come close
> > to justifying incompatible changes.

> I think that in the long term, taking care to not make simple things
> like making a command for a mode too arduous, is important.

Other people disagree with your judgment, here.  Normally, before making
massive changes, the proposed changes are first discussed on this list
and a consensus reached.  And for major changes, these are, and should
be, done first on a branch, to enable them to be evaluated before being
merged.  Neither of these things has happened in this case.

> And again, I don't see what makes extending `interactive' so special
> here.

I explained that in my post from Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:03:53 +0000.  You
ignored that post, as you have ignored so many posts questioning your
new scheme.  Instead you've ploughed ahead with the changes, without
waiting for the desired consensus.

> We introduce new things in Emacs Lisp all the time when we think that
> that improves the language.

That won't cut it.  That verges on being untruthful.  This isn't an
ordinary change, it's a particularly fundamental change in Emacs's
structures.  Done by you acting alone.

And "We"?  Who is "we" here?  Normally, large changes are made by
consensus.  For this change there is no consensus.  The fact is, the
effect of this change could have been had without the questionable major
changes you're imposing on Emacs.

What sort of project is Emacs to be?  Up till now, as I say, it has
worked by consensus and respect.  Do you want these qualities to be
continued from this point on?  I hope so.

> -- 
> (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
>    bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).