RE: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > If you want to "maximize backward compatibility", why rename anything?
> >
> > Why not just use nlinum functions wherever you want, in place of linum
> > functions?  Why gratuitously change user code at the same time?
> >
> > (To be clear, I don't knowingly use either, and I have no code that
> > does.  My question has nothing to do with my personal use of Emacs.)
> 
> Because the main reason to install nlinum-mode is to fix the bugs of
> linum-mode, so users of linum-mode will only benefit from those
> bug-fixes if they get transparently "upgraded" to nlinum-mode.

They will benefit if they are "upgraded" to nlinum-mode, whether
that happens "transparently" or they do it intentionally & knowingly.

Still sounds more user-friendly to me to (a) fix all Emacs source code
to use the nlinum functions and (b) encourage 3rd-party code to move
to using those functions also.

Changing the names is not so nice.  3rd-party programmers will not
know without digging a bit that completely different code is now being
run under the same names (even the library name is taken over).

Not a big deal, but not super considerate of users.  And you did say
you wanted to "maximize backward compatibility".