On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:36:23AM +0100, João Távora wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:15 AM Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> >    following recent discussions I've started toying with what I've pushed
> > on
> >    scratch/modern-mode.
> >
> > What some find modern, some will find old.  What some find old, some
> > will find modern.  What was once modern will become old again, and
> > what was old again will become modern.
> >
> > A different name would be more appropriate
> 
> 
> Yup, this is really obvious to me, too (*)  I seem to remember that
> other packages don't have a lot of problems naming some
> features "fancy".  Does "fancy" have a negative connotation?

De Luxe?

But more seriously: what I have learnt from all this discussion
is that we'll need more than one of those.

Those modes are often opinionated (they have to). So it's better
if the mode's opinions align with those of the user.

It'll be Emacs's job to provide the bridges and the common base
for all of that (someone in this monster thread quoted X11's
motto of providing "mechanism, not policy": I think this is
 - mutatis mutandis - a good guiding principle).

Cheers
 - t