From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Should mode commands be idempotent? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505929972 26649 195.159.176.226 (20 Sep 2017 17:52:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:52:52 +0000 (UTC) To: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 20 19:52:48 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 1dujB0-0006ag-Aw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:52:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50013 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dujB7-0005qu-M8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:52:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37063) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dujAU-0005nL-Fi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dujAP-0000Bz-Kg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:52:14 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:26273) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dujAP-0000BT-Bo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:52:09 -0400 Original-Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v8KHq7JO016578 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:52:08 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v8KHq7AO029379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:52:07 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v8KHq6Vb018866; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:52:07 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6776.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 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:218599 Archived-At: > > What's the use case for such a restriction? >=20 > I'll return the question: when/why would a major-mode or a minor-mode > not want to be idempotent? Can you cite at least one example? I don't need to. There should be some reasons given for making a change, especially a change that attempt to restrict users, whether by tooling or convention. I've already accorded the assumption that most modes do (already - with no need for such a requirement or convention) have the requested property of idempotence. Why reach further? What's the real problem this request is trying to solve? I repeat, "Why should it be a "requirement" or a convention?" (No reason given, so far.)