RE: [External] : Re: command mode-specificity [was: scratch/command 064f146 1/2: Change...]

[Drew Adams]

> > I couldn't get a response when I asked for
> > reasons why it was expected that 97% of
> > commands are mode-specific.  (Stefan even
> > characterized asking for that to be only
> > a joke.)
> 
> Drew?  Hello?  I never said your question was a joke.
> I said it was cute, because it showed you didn't
> catch that the 97% figure was a joke.

Sorry, Stefan.  I misunderstood.  Your replies
were short and a bit too cryptic for me.  Mille
excuses.

When I said that my question wasn't a joke, and
you replied "it was (and still is)", I thought
you were speaking about my question.

Of course I guessed that the "my stats dept"
part of Lars's post was cute, a joke.  But I
didn't guess that his 97% was also a joke.

Assuming you're right (Lars hasn't spoken up),
what's the real answer?  Do you have the same
feeling as Eli and I, that most commands usable
in most contexts are not mode-specific?
___

If that's really the case, or if most of you/us
think it is, then why have we gone down this
road so precipitously?  I don't understand that.