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 19:10:01 +0100
> 
> 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?

No, we are not.

> 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.

I just cannot understand why you insist on this solution as the only
one, when there are others that can do the job without the downsides.
Is "compromise" a dirty word or something?