Re: Removing unloaded functions from auto-mode-alist.

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     Why do we desperately need a special alias just in exactly that
>     case where it really is likely to cause problems?
>
> The idea that it "causes problems" is based on a mistaken idea of
> how things ought to work.  ALL the usual ways of invoking a mode for
> TeX should be defined by both AUCTeX and tex-mode.el.  It woulod be
> a bug if they were different.
>
>     Again: do you have knowledge of even a single instance where
>     this alias has been used, promoted, or found convenient for or
>     by as much as a single person?
>
> If these names are not really used by users, maybe we could these
> names in both AUCTeX and tex-mode.el.

Well, people use LaTeX-mode and TeX-mode quite a bit when intending to
call AUCTeX explicitly, so I would not want to give those bindings up.
If I can get a _definite_ promise that tex-mode's aliases on TeX-mode
and LaTeX-mode will stay in place (as long as the AUCTeX maintainer of
the day is throwing a tantrum when necessary to remind people), then I
would be fine with letting AUCTeX merely overload tex-mode, latex-mode
and plain-tex-mode and not touching the aliases (which makes unloading
cleaner as that does not then automatically and inappropriately
undefine aliases unnecessarily duplicated by AUCTeX).

May I build a scheme around that assumption?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum