[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#22189: 25.1.50; [PATCH] Add `global-goto-address-mode' and `global-g

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#22189: 25.1.50; [PATCH] Add `global-goto-address-mode' and `global-goto-address-prog-mode'
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:49:30 +0200

> From: Vaidheeswaran C <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:06:38 +0530
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > I'm serious: we don't have any rule that says each minor mode should
> > have a corresponding globalized minor mode.  Users can trivially do in
> > their ~/.emacs what you do in your patch, so we should have some
> > rationale for having such a global mode as part of Emacs.  
> Of all the minor modes, what criteria do the minor modes below all share
> so that they are global?  Once we such a set of rules, we can see
> whether patch I submitted makes through the gate.

I don't know.  I didn't make those decisions (most of them were made
many years ago).

In any case, what is already in Emacs is already there, and is not
subject to this discussion.  If you think some of those should be
removed, feel free to start a separate discussion about that.  Here we
are talking about adding these two specific globalized modes.

> Your definition of "bloat" (as I see it) is this: If it can be in
> .emacs, it can be a bloat.  Given your definition of bloat, cannot the
> above lines also reside in .emacs?  Shouldn't this alone make the above
> lines a bloat?

Perhaps.  But that's not the issue at hand.  It would be impractical
to convert a discussion about every change into a much broader
discussion about consistency of rules and past decisions.

> > Please show such a rationale.
> Usefulnesss is the only rationale.

I was asking for more details about the usefulness part.  Please humor
me, it's important for me to hear the arguments in favor of including
your submission.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]