bug#32643: 26; minor-mode variables

[Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com>]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> (Code looking only for the expected mode variable won't see
> that, but a person can.)

If someone sends a fix for Bug#29081, then code will be able to figure
out where to look as well.

>> > (The bug report also asks whether it's a bug for a mode not to have
>> > a variable, and suggests that it is. And if it's not, the report asks that
>> > the Elisp manual give some guidance about when a mode should
>> > not or need not have a variable.)
>> 
>> I don't think the Elisp manual needs to fill in for user's common sense
>> by telling them they are free to break conventions if it makes sense to
>> do so.  The fact that it's a "convention" and not a "requirement" should
>> be enough.
>
> It's not about users being free to break the convention - that's of
> course the case, for all Emacs conventions. It's about having some
> idea (see above) of when it might "make sense to do so".
>
> That users are free to not follow an Elisp coding convention is
> something different from whether and how much the distributed Emacs
> Lisp code should do so.  The bug report is not about whether some user
> code should follow the convention

Okay, so I don't think the Emacs manual needs to fill in for user's
common sense by telling them that Emacs breaks conventions if it makes
sense to do so.  The fact that it's a "convention" and not a
"requirement" should be enough.

> - you twisted that around.

Did I?  From my end, it looks like you had some idle question about the
implementation of auto-fill-mode, and instead of looking at the source
for 5 minutes, you sent a long and rambling bug report.

Then, you got 3 responses, none of which exactly matched what you were
trying to say.  You respond with more rambling, argumentation, and
accusation.

Given your posting history, am I surprised that you rudely abuse the bug
list in this way?  No.  But I'm not happy about it either.