From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should mode commands be idempotent? Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:06:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: << > <<9f11a3c6-b113-4bf6-9dab-f894b2ad77b5@default>> <> > <> <76b52493-ec33-4a95-8378-03500def37de@default> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1506377290 18393 195.159.176.226 (25 Sep 2017 22:08:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 26 00:08:06 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dwbXo-00048O-RT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:08:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44508 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwbXr-000466-90 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:08:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52621) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwbWX-0003gf-TY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:06:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwbWX-0001ol-1J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:06:45 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47730) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwbWN-0001kW-Pw; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:06:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dwbWN-00038v-Dm; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:06:35 -0400 In-reply-to: <76b52493-ec33-4a95-8378-03500def37de@default> (message from Drew Adams on Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:26:57 -0700 (PDT)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218786 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > But I think at least some here are talking about a > convention for Emacs _users_ to follow, e.g., for > 3rd-party code, not just for code distributed with Emacs. Yes. > In that case, I don't see it as appropriate for an Emacs > convention to call out what constitutes a bug. Sure it is. We can't force anyone to follow our conventions. We don't want to try to force anyone. So we need not hesitate to state technical design conventions. We can say that a non-idempotent mode is a bug. > 2. Beyond that, just what kind of "idempotence" is in > view? What program state do we expect must be identical > if a mode is turned on more than once? And what do we > mean by "identical" here? That question sounds like a wild-goose chase. I don't think we need to give it a precise answer. "Enabling a mode should be idempotent" is enough to say. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.