[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT)

> > What's the use case for such a restriction?
> I'll return the question: when/why would a major-mode or a minor-mode
> not want to be idempotent?  Can you cite at least one example?

I don't need to.  There should be some reasons given for making
a change, especially a change that attempt to restrict users,
whether by tooling or convention.

I've already accorded the assumption that most modes do
(already - with no need for such a requirement or convention)
have the requested property of idempotence.  Why reach further?

What's the real problem this request is trying to solve?

I repeat, "Why should it be a "requirement" or a convention?"

(No reason given, so far.)

reply via email to

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