Re: [POLL] Should we accept breaking changes to get rid of Org libraries that perform side effects when loading?

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>]

Nick Dokos <ndokos@gmail.com> writes:

> I would also recommend that the library *not* call its enable function
> in general and leave it to the user to do so explicitly, but that may
> be more controversial for "backward compatibility" reasons (with which
> I disagree in these particular cases: I view them as bugs that need to
> be fixed).

I think that we all agree on this point.
The main question is where to draw a line between intrusive and
non-intrusive side effects.

For example, before loading ob-emacs-lisp

#+begin_src elisp
 (+ 1 1)
#+end_src

will not be syntax-highlighted, while after loading it will.
Is it intrusive? Somewhat. But maybe not bad enough to justify enable
function.

Similarly, loading ob-lilypond will alter how file containing lilypond
fragments is tangled.

Or loading ox-foo.el may alter export menu.

We have plenty of examples with varying degrees of side effects in Org.
And it is not fully clear to me which side effects are worth eliminating
and which are not.

Yet another option could be forcing certain side effects even without
loading. For example,
  (add-to-list 'org-babel-tangle-lang-exts '("LilyPond" . "ly"))
that sets up tangling of lilypond fragments can be changed to

;;;#autoload
(add-to-list 'org-babel-tangle-lang-exts '("LilyPond" . "ly"))

That way, we will consistently get the same tangle configuration even
before ob-lilypond is loaded.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>