[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.)
RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/19
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/09/19
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/09/20
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/21
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Richard Stallman, 2017/09/21
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/22
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Richard Stallman, 2017/09/22
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/24
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Richard Stallman, 2017/09/25
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