Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> Sure. This is not by itself a big deal. A number of Elisp libraries, >>> including built-in Emacs libraries are loaded with side effects. >> >> It is still violation of conventions: >> >> (info "(elisp) Coding Conventions") >> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Coding-Conventions.html >>> D.1 Emacs Lisp Coding Conventions >>> >>> Simply loading a package should not change Emacs’s editing behavior. >>> Include a command or commands to enable and disable the feature, or to >>> invoke it. >>> >>> This convention is mandatory for any file that includes custom >>> definitions. If fixing such a file to follow this convention requires an >>> incompatible change, go ahead and make the incompatible change; don’t >>> postpone it. > > This is convincing. > I am then CCing Bastien, as, despite the Elisp convention, following it > will break https://bzg.fr/en/the-software-maintainers-pledge/
FWIW, in this case, the mistake lies in breaking the Emacs Lisp coding convention first. When the breaking change is a side-effect of fixing a bug, it is unavoidable. -- Bastien
