Re: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change command to interactive ... modes

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,  dgutov@yandex.ru
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:39:18 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> Why it's important that commands loaded from .elc files are backwards
> >> compatible when commands loaded from .el files aren't, for instance.
> >
> > The command's body is the same, so it is IMO a disadvantage to have a
> > .elc file that can only be loaded by Emacs >= 28.
> 
> The .elc file can be loaded fine -- the only incompatibility is in the
> interactive spec bit (both in the .el file and in the .elc file).
> 
> So "not backwards compatible bytecode" is perhaps overstating the case.

I don't think I agree.

Looking at it from another aspect: don't you agree that the
alternative solutions are less intrusive?  They introduce neither new
syntax nor new semantics, they just use existing facilities.  Thus,
those alternatives don't increase complexity as much as the new arg of
'interactive'.  It is advantageous to have a solution with less
complexity.