[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?
From: |
John Wiegley |
Subject: |
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent? |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:50:50 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130016 (Ma Gnus v0.16) Emacs/25.2.50 (darwin) |
>>>>> "PS" == Philipp Stephani <address@hidden> writes:
PS> I think it's generally expected that mode commands (both major and minor)
PS> are reasonably idempotent, i.e. calling them twice should have the same
PS> effects as calling them once (unless using 'toggle, of course). However, I
PS> couldn't find this requirement in the manual, should it be added to the
PS> "Modes" section?
Actually, I'm used to turning off minor modes by just calling their mode
function a second time...
--
John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, (continued)
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2017/09/23
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/24
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2017/09/25
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/25
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/09/25
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/25
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/26
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/26
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/26
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/26
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?,
John Wiegley <=
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Richard Stallman, 2017/09/20