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

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> > I don't see a discussion, just an opinion that some variable should go
>> > away.  Can't we remove it without activating all the modes?
>> [...]
>> > How did you intend to handle the backward compatibility issues?
>> 
>> I'm not sure which kinds of backward compatibility issues you're
>> thinking of.
>> 
>> AFAIK none of the functions defined in `generic-x` overlap with other
>> packages, so there shouldn't be any conflict or
>> backward incompatibility.
>> 
>> What am I missing?
>
> What do we tell all those (myself included) who require generic-x in
> their init files?

I don't know what they need to be told.
Can you clarify what broke or risks breaking because of the change?

> And while at that: why did you think that variable was ugly and had
> to go?

Because a file that defines different sets of functions depending on
some configuration variable tends to be problematic (I can't remember
the exact issue that prompted my suggestion but it was related to that
IIRC).


        Stefan