|
From: | Alexandre Oberlin |
Subject: | Re: Why is it not possible to use "nil" any more in init files ? |
Date: | Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:45:24 +0100 |
User-agent: | Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) |
Looks like there is a huge difference with the new minor mode setting issue: the above adds clarity and does not break any backward compatibility, so it is a good move, just like x-get-selection should be be preferred to x-selection in new code, but x-selection still works. This approach of adding more specific and unambiguous function names without breaking anything could perfectly have been used for the mode setting issue. Taking enriched-mode (which I use all the time) as an example, one could have added:This is somewhere in between. I certainly used to do (add-hook 'blah 'wanted-mode) which generally works. Then I found out about (add-hook 'blah 'turn-on-wanted-mode) which works better. But many people did the former. Now it works correctly as well.
(set-enriched-mode) and (unset-enriched-mode)while leaving the intrinsically ambiguous (enriched-mode) toggling as well in evaluation as interactively.
This reminds me of parents who don’t understand why they should be strict with their kid, when laxity brings contentment to the kid and peace to themselves... for some time ;-)I don't understand why you can't seem to see that it's a compromise that advantages many.
Cheers, Alexandre
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |