RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?

[Drew Adams]

> > There should be some reasons given for making a change,
> > especially a change that attempt to restrict users,
> > whether by tooling or convention.
> 
> Philip gave the reason in the first email: "it's generally
> expected that mode commands (both major and minor) are
> reasonably idempotent".

If that's _already_ "generally expected", it's because,
as I said, most already _are_ "reasonably idempotent".

Since that is already generally expected, and is already
the case, I don't see a reason for adding a "requirement"
or a "convention" for that.  No reason for such a thing
has been given, so far.  The "reason" you cite just
restates the obvious and echoes the status quo, no?

A reason is what I'm asking for, not a statement that
this is already the case and therefore already generally 
expected, but a reason why we should make that already 
typical  practice a "requirement" or a "convention".

Having a convention that suggests that most modes should
be idempotent, when most already are, is like the father
of a first-born claiming to have taught his baby to say
"papa", whereas it's the other way 'round: the father's
word "papa" was invented by babies and taught to parents
(and heard by them slightly differently in different
languages).  It's (already) a de facto rule: just a
self-evident truth of experience.

Now if you instead were to propose that _all_ modes
_must_ then yes, it's likely that that's not currently
satisfied.  In that case, I'd ask why _all must_.

But if not - if all you're requesting is a rule that
_most_ _should_, _in general_, then my question is
why come up with such a rule?  What's it for?