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

[Drew Adams]

> > I think it would be good to try and clarify what should be the
> > criterion, and not in terms of "should be listed in M-x" since that
> > inherently depends on opinions, but rather in more technical terms
> > that depend on what the command does.
> > [ A bit like with docstrings: we like docstrings that say what the
> >   function does rather than when/where it's meant to be used.  ]
> >
> > Maybe something like "would inevitably signal an error"?
> 
> I don't think there's any hard and fast
> criterion that can be used, though.

Which is what some of us have been saying...

So we're back to the question of what you mean
by "commands meant for this specific mode" and
"commands bound to modes".

No answer, so far.  OK, you've said it's a
judgment call.  That sounds reasonable.  But
what criteria are you using when weighing?

And why not let users do the judging, including
at the time of completion?  Why decide for them?

> it's not immediately obvious what's the right
> thing to do until you've evaluated a few
> instances.

It sounds like the concept of command relevance
for a mode is itself not well understood/defined.

We're back to one person's filter-it-out is
another's keep-it-in, no?

Put differently, as already said, things are not
cut-and-dried.

Whether a command should be a completion candidate
depends on the user and the current context.  It's
not something for some developer to decide at
command definition time. No predefined filtering
"per mode" makes general sense, at least not as
default behavior.