Re: Should mode commands be idempotent?

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> "SM" == Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

SM> It seems the general consensus in this discussion is that it might indeed
SM> be a good convention. Since you disagree, maybe you could give us some
SM> concrete arguments about why it might be desirable for a minor/major mode
SM> to be non-idempotent.

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.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2