From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change command to interactive ... modes Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 22:47:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83o8gj9a8o.fsf@gnu.org> <871rdfvq86.fsf@gnus.org> <83h7mb98g8.fsf@gnu.org> <87o8gjuaez.fsf@gnus.org> <83ft1v97bk.fsf@gnu.org> <877dn7u7wq.fsf@gnus.org> <835z2r94zw.fsf@gnu.org> <831rdf91r1.fsf@gnu.org> <87ft1vsmf5.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32223"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , dgutov@yandex.ru, Stefan Kangas , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 16 23:51:48 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 1lC9C7-0008I9-Sp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 23:51:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40480 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC9C6-0007so-Vo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:51:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40236) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC97t-000304-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:47:25 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:28291 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lC97r-00054q-Bg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:47:25 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 82949 invoked by uid 3782); 16 Feb 2021 22:47:20 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15a74.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.90.116]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 23:47:20 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 9430 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Feb 2021 22:47:20 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ft1vsmf5.fsf@gnus.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:264950 Archived-At: Hello, Lars. On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 23:00:30 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Eli Zaretskii 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).