RE: Should mode commands be idempotent?

[Drew Adams]

> > What's the use case for such a restriction?
> 
> I'll return the question: when/why would a major-mode or a minor-mode
> not want to be idempotent?  Can you cite at least one example?

I don't need to.  There should be some reasons given for making
a change, especially a change that attempt to restrict users,
whether by tooling or convention.

I've already accorded the assumption that most modes do
(already - with no need for such a requirement or convention)
have the requested property of idempotence.  Why reach further?

What's the real problem this request is trying to solve?

I repeat, "Why should it be a "requirement" or a convention?"

(No reason given, so far.)