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

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > To me, the proposed alternatives sound like a clear win, since the
>> > downsides are non-existent, whereas the advantage is clear.  Why do we
>> > need to insist on introducing bytecode incompatibility?
>> 
>> Nobody responded to my dismissals, so I have no idea what parts (if any)
>> of those people thought were insufficient.
>
> I thought they did, but maybe I've mixed up the chronology here, as
> mail delivery was behaving strangely during the last few days.
>
>> Could you explain, perhaps?
>
> What part would you like me to explain?

Why it's important that commands loaded from .elc files are backwards
compatible when commands loaded from .el files aren't, for instance.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no