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

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> I think that in the long term, taking care to not make simple things
>> like making a command for a mode too arduous, is important.
>
> I don't think using 'declare' or a plist can be characterized as
> "arduous".

I think it is.  We'd be demanding that people learn about obscure things
like `declare' just to write a little mode.  That's not good language
design.

>> And again, I don't see what makes extending `interactive' so special
>> here.  We introduce new things in Emacs Lisp all the time when we think
>> that that improves the language.
>
> It's not the extension per se, it's the fact that it causes
> difficulties, as mentioned in this thread.  they may be small
> difficulties, but the alternatives avoid them completely, and aren't
> more complex.  I think using one of the alternatives will leave more
> developers happy, and that in itself is a significant advantage, IMO.

The difficulties are minuscule.

If somebody wants to write code that backwards-compatible, then use the
compat library or use `declare'.  I don't see why that should stop us
from making the Emacs Lisp language better, and use the best language
construction in our in-tree code.

Doing otherwise makes no sense.

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