Re: RE: [External] : Running emacs without any customisation

[uzibalqa]

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, October 11th, 2022 at 5:45 PM, Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> 
wrote:


> > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 3:57 AM
> > From: "Drew Adams" drew.adams@oracle.com
> > To: "Michael Heerdegen" michael_heerdegen@web.de, "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" 
> > help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> > Subject: RE: [External] : Re: Running emacs without any customisation
> > 
> > > It is an error in a package if loading the package has side effects other
> > > than defining functions and variables, recursively loading other stuff,
> > > and these things, but not all stuff out there respects that rule.
> > 
> > FWIW, I disagree that "it is an error".
> > It may be poor form, unfriendly, or impolite,
> > but it's not an error. And yes, it's a "rule"
> > (guideline), and a useful one.
> > 
> > But it need not always be poor form, unfriendly,
> > or impolite, provided users are sufficiently
> > informed clearly what loading the library does,
> > that is, just what side effects it performs.
> > 
> > In general, yes, it's not user-friendly etc.
> > In particular, however, it could be.
> > 
> > It's analogous to turning on a minor mode
> > (though not the same): If you know what loading
> > some package does, and you load it, then you
> > are, in effect, turning on a "mode". It's a
> > user choice to load a library.
> > 
> > One big disadvantage, however is that you might
> > not have read the doc explaining what loading
> > does. Another big disadvantage is that
> > `unload-feature' and` <XXX>-unload-function'
> > might not (likely will not) truly reverse
> > everything that loading did.
> > 
> > To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of side
> > effects while loading a library. I'm just
> > disagreeing that that's an error, or that it's
> > always necessarily a big bad thing.
> > 
> > Your init file is a "library". You load it.
> > It performs side effects. It's your choice to
> > load it (versus `emacs -Q'). Of course, you're
> > likely the only user of your init file, so at
> > worst you shoot only yourself in the foot.

I do not see it is only me that gets shot, because the
command

emacs -q --no-site-file --no-splash

also displays a black background, whereas "emacs -Q" gives a white background.


 
> > There's a fuzzy gradation from such a Lisp file
> > and a "library" or "package". (That's Lisp and
> > free software.)
> 
> 
> From my perspective, the situation in a bit different. How can
> users restore to a fresh system when things get messed up?
> 
> There should be clear instructions to users.