Re: master 0161c9d 1/2: Load all generic-x.el modes unconditionally

[Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> And would the above solution be acceptable to you, Eli?
>
> The "above" being that generic-x will add to the end of
> auto-mode-alist?

Yes.

> You assume that having some font-lock cannot hurt, but that isn't
> necessarily what users will think, because someone might _want_ to
> have certain files edited in Fundamental mode, and adding font-lock
> could therefore be an unexpected annoyance.

Surely anyone who doesn't want font-lock should be expected to just turn
it off?  They could M-x fundamental-mode, M-x font-lock-mode, or just
remove the entry from auto-mode-alist.  They could even `push' a new
element to it saying to use fundamental-mode instead.

Or they should just not have required generic-x to begin with, since its
express purpose is to add font-locking to various assorted files.

I'm also not sure we should ask what some users "might" want, because
that seems to me too broad.  I think that for any idea, you can always
find those one or two users who really like or dislike it.  Isn't it
therefore more productive to ask what *most* current and new users are
likely to want, and try to model our defaults based on that (while of
course doing our best to respect existing use patterns)?