On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:15 AM Alfred M. Szmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org
following recent discussions I've started toying with what I've pushed on
What some find modern, some will find old. What some find old, some
will find modern. What was once modern will become old again, and
what was old again will become modern.
A different name would be more appropriate
Yup, this is really obvious to me, too (*) I seem to remember that
other packages don't have a lot of problems naming some
features "fancy". Does "fancy" have a negative connotation?
Maybe it does, as does e.g. "baroque". Both terms indicate
an "elaboration" or an "amplification" beyond some essential
state, which would be Emacs -Q, I guess.
fancy-mode? rich-mode? amplified-mode? ornate-mode? Why not
* though "modernism" is itself considered a style, reasonably
well defined within the 20th century, but that doesn't matter,
unless we are purposely trying to emulate that style in Emacs,
which I don't think we are. On a tangent, Emacs defaults
themselves could even be seen as modernist already, form
mostly follows function, rejects most ornament, etc etc