[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?
From: |
John Wiegley |
Subject: |
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent? |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:01:51 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130016 (Ma Gnus v0.16) Emacs/26.0 (darwin) |
>>>>> Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:
>> FWIW, I can't off the top of my head think of a reason why (foo-mode 1)
>> followed by (foo-mode 1) should do something different than just calling it
>> once.
> Just what do you have in mind, for the meaning here of "do something
> different"? Are we saying that the state of the Emacs session after the
> second call should be identical to the state after the first call? Just what
> kind of "identical" would be meant?
Yes, idempotence: calling it N times is the exact same as calling it once.
--
John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, (continued)
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2017/09/23
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/24
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2017/09/25
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/25
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/09/25
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/25
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/26
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?,
John Wiegley <=
- RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Drew Adams, 2017/09/26
- Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/26
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, John Wiegley, 2017/09/19
Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?, Richard Stallman, 2017/09/20