[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent? |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:01:49 -0400 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I think it's generally expected that mode commands (both major and minor)
> are reasonably idempotent, i.e. calling them twice should have the same
> effects as calling them once (unless using 'toggle, of course). However, I
> couldn't find this requirement in the manual, should it be added to the
> "Modes" section?
This is the intended behavior, and has been all along.
It would be good to say so explicitly.
For major modes, as long as they work exclusively by setting
buffer-local variables and other per-buffer values (which they should),
kill-all-local-variables takes care of this automatically.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, (continued)
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2017/09/25
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/25
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/09/25
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/25
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/26
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/26
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/26
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/26
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/19
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?,
Richard Stallman <=