Re: abbrev-mode - toggle-abbrev-mode

Re: abbrev-mode - toggle-abbrev-mode

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Adding emacs-devel because I think this is a more general policy question.

In general some-mode and toggle-some-mode are different.  (some-mode nil)
is equivalent to (toggle-some-mode), while (some-mode 1) and (some-mode -1)
unconditionally turn it on and off respectively.  As far as I know, XEmacs tries
to avoid the toggle-, turn-on-, turn-off-some-mode style.  I would
prefer to avoid
introducing it if Emacs is not actively promoting that style (in fact,
I'd prefer to
ask Emacs to do things our way, on principle, not out of laziness ;-).

I'm certainly in favor of maintaining common interfaces for common
functionality,
but first we should think about whether there are reasons for doing it
one way or
the other.

On 10/15/07, Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> wrote:
>
> It seems as `toggle-abbrev-mode' in GNU Emacs and
> `abbrev-mode' in XEmacs are reciprocal.
>
> As I'm going to adapt my GNU Emacs Lisp stuff to run at
> XEmacs too, I would like to keep the diffs as small as
> possible.
>
> I'm not going to say, abbrev-mode in XEmacs isn't as
> good as in GNU, rather I'm campaigning to take the
> X-way there.
>
> However, in cases were commands only differ by name,
> what about to give RMS the honour and simply follow GNU
> convention?
>
> Thanks all
>
> Andreas Röhler
>
> _______________________________________________
> XEmacs-Beta mailing list
> XEmacs-Beta@xemacs.org
> http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
>

Re: abbrev-mode - toggle-abbrev-mode

[Stefan Monnier]

> Adding emacs-devel because I think this is a more general policy question.
> In general some-mode and toggle-some-mode are different.  (some-mode nil)
> is equivalent to (toggle-some-mode), while (some-mode 1) and
> (some-mode -1) unconditionally turn it on and off respectively.  As far as
> I know, XEmacs tries to avoid the toggle-, turn-on-, turn-off-some-mode
> style.  I would prefer to avoid introducing it if Emacs is not actively
> promoting that style (in fact, I'd prefer to ask Emacs to do things our
> way, on principle, not out of laziness ;-).

I'm opposed to turn-on-foo-mode, turn-off-foo-mode, and toggle-foo-mode,
since the foo-mode function covers all 3 uses just fine.

This said, as far as I can tell, Emacs has no `toggle-abbrev-mode', so
I don't know what Andreas was talking about.


        Stefan

Re: abbrev-mode - toggle-abbrev-mode

[Richard Stallman]

      As far as I know, XEmacs tries
    to avoid the toggle-, turn-on-, turn-off-some-mode style.  I would
    prefer to avoid
    introducing it if Emacs is not actively promoting that style (in fact,
    I'd prefer to
    ask Emacs to do things our way, on principle, not out of laziness ;-).

I have no wish to treat that as a standard either.
Our policy is that there may be a `turn-on-XYZ-mode' function
but does not have to be one.

Re: abbrev-mode - toggle-abbrev-mode

[Andreas Röhler]

Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2007 00:14 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
> > Adding emacs-devel because I think this is a more general policy
> > question. In general some-mode and toggle-some-mode are different. 
> > (some-mode nil) is equivalent to (toggle-some-mode), while (some-mode 1)
> > and
> > (some-mode -1) unconditionally turn it on and off respectively.  As far
> > as I know, XEmacs tries to avoid the toggle-, turn-on-,
> > turn-off-some-mode style.  I would prefer to avoid introducing it if
> > Emacs is not actively promoting that style (in fact, I'd prefer to ask
> > Emacs to do things our way, on principle, not out of laziness ;-).
>
> I'm opposed to turn-on-foo-mode, turn-off-foo-mode, and toggle-foo-mode,
> since the foo-mode function covers all 3 uses just fine.
>
> This said, as far as I can tell, Emacs has no `toggle-abbrev-mode', so
> I don't know what Andreas was talking about.
>

Oh yeah, sorry to all. That's my own forgotten alias I
disputed here. All ashes over me.

Andreas Röhler