Re: Why is it not possible to use "nil" any more in init files ?

["Alexandre Oberlin" <email_via_web@migo.info>]

Toggling functions are obviously not always suitable for config files or  
scripts, though there are situations where they simplify code.

Toggling functions remain quite convenient on the command line, with the  
new state displaying in the minibuffer, and I am glad to see that this has  
been respected. Now IMHO, it is fundamental that toggling functions like  
all functions behave the same when called from a file or interactively.  
They could maybe report a warning in the former case, but trigger a  
revolution and create unending and potentially serious problems in legacy  
code? How many million users had reported to have trouble with such  
functions in scripts? Were they not able to learn good principles?

On top of that, not having the explicit arguments work as once expected  
does not help. Really, ain’t it a bit confusing to have
(cua-mode -1)
return nil and
(cua-mode nil)
return t ?


Downgrading ASAP,


Alexandre


-- 
In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble.
		Alan Perlis

>> Thanks Stefan for this explanation.  So IIUC that trick broke some  
>> correct
>> .emacs in order to magically fix some broken ones?
>
> Yup, and not just for .emacs files but also for calls made from one
> package to another.  Basically, experience shows that *toggling* is
> very rarely what we want when writing the Elisp code.
>
> 99.9% of calls of the form (foo-mode nil) or (foo-mode) either were
> meant to enable the mode (the vast majority), or were meant to disable
> the mode (a minority, but not an insignificant one).
>
> A small proportion of those calls were correct (because the context
> made sure that the mode was always either enabled or disabled), but
> after yet-another bug report of someone not understanding why his
> font-lock was not enabled in such and such circumstance, I decided that
> it was time to break the small proportion of those minority cases which
> expected (and with reason) the call to disable the mode.
>
> This change was made more than 5 years ago, and it hasn't caused much of
> a ruckus and even fewer bug reports, so I think I made the right call.
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>


--