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

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> 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.

Could you explain what your disagreement is on this point?  That would
be helpful.

>> 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?

OK, so you want me to re-iterate my arguments, once again?

OK.

I think that if mode tagging is something that is going to happen on a
large scale, the mechanism for doing this must be clear, easy and
maintainable.  Tagging 97% of our commands with

(defun foo ()
  (declare (completion foo-mode))
  (interactive "p"))

seems like a much worse solution in the "clear and easy" dept than

(defun foo ()
  (interactive "p" foo-mode))

Do you disagree with this?

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