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

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> 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.

But that's a different discussion.

I take it that the conclusion to the question I asked ("is there a point
to having the .elc files be compatible when the .el files aren't?") is
"no, there's no point in that".

Are we in agreement on that?  If so, could you tell me what's wrong with
that logic?

The other question you're now re-asking is: Does it make sense to
introduce a new `interactive' form?

And I've argued that point repeatedly, and I don't really wish to repeat
myself.  I can do so if you think it would help, though -- just let me
know.

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