Subject: Re: [External] : bug#49278: 28.0.50; Lisp Mode is for Common Lisp

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:25:58 -0400

>> >> "Because it's only appropriate for Common Lisp."  Good enough?
>> > No.  We don't know that.  We can't know that.
>> 
>> Whether it works for other modes is not important.  What we should
>> document is what it's intended to support.
>> 
>> People have used `c-mode` for many other languages than C over the
>> years, yet we haven't changed its documentation to say it for C-like
>> languages.
>> 
>> I don't understand why `lisp-mode` should be treated differently.
>
> I don't see how what you're saying is different
> from what I said, but I sense that you intend
> it to mean something different.

AFAIK you're arguing that we should not say "lisp-mode is designed for
Common-Lisp" on the basis that some users may be able to use for some
other languages, whereas I argue it doesn't matter what other languages
it may be used for unless we know and care about them to some extent.

If/when some other language pops up which we decide is important enough
(and similar enough) to support in `lisp-mode`, then we can revise the
doc, but for the last 20 years at least, `lisp-mode` has exclusively
catered to the needs of Common Lisp (even if some people have likely
used it for other languages, which I have no intention to prevent or
object to).

Other Lisps have their own major mode (Emacs Lisp, Scheme, Clojure,
Shen, ...).

> It's a Lisp mode.  (George: "Is there a rosy hue?"
> Jerry: "There's...a...hue")

No, that's the thing, it's a Common Lisp mode, not just "any Lisp" mode.

> We know it kinda works for Common Lisp.  You apparently know it kinda
> doesn't work for Scheme or Clojure.

I neither know nor care whether it does or not.  Just like we neither
know nor care whether `c-mode` works for other languages when we say
that `c-mode` is a major mode for C.

> It sounds like the main question here is whether
> to call it out as something only for Common Lisp,

Indeed, what else do you think we were discussing?

> in which its name should be changed,

Why should the name of the major mode be relevant to this discussion?

        Stefan