bug#32643: 26; minor-mode variables

[Noam Postavsky]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> And that "should" is not respected by some variables from basic
> Emacs itself - in particular `auto-fill-mode'. Shouldn't it be?
>
> Nothing requires everything in the Emacs distribution to respect
> each convention that Emacs sets forth. But is there a reason why
> `auto-fill-mode' (and others?) should not respect this convention?
> If nothing else, I'm curious why the exception(s).

Applying common sense, the obvious explanation is that auto-fill-mode
controls only a single variable (i.e., `auto-fill-function'), and adding
an extra `auto-fill-mode' which would then have to be kept in sync just
to conform to some convention is not worth the trouble.

> (The bug report also asks whether it's a bug for a mode not to have
> a variable, and suggests that it is. And if it's not, the report asks that
> the Elisp manual give some guidance about when a mode should
> not or need not have a variable.)

I don't think the Elisp manual needs to fill in for user's common sense
by telling them they are free to break conventions if it makes sense to
do so.  The fact that it's a "convention" and not a "requirement" should
be enough.