[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:51:56 -0400 |
> It seems that interactive-p as currently defined is very rarely useful
> -- perhaps never. Perhaps we should change interactive-p to ignore
> whether the command is running from a macro and do what most people
> seem to expect.
I think we should declare it obsolete because the alternative (of adding an
argument) is always clearer, less brittle, and allows callers better
control.
Before we say it is obsolete, we had better see if anyone does really
want it. It would be very good for someone to determine which, if
any, of the current uses of interactive-p really want the current
behavior of interactive-p.
Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Stefan, 2004/10/15
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Stefan Monnier, 2004/10/16
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Kim F. Storm, 2004/10/16
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Stefan Monnier, 2004/10/17
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/10/17
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Stefan Monnier, 2004/10/17
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Kim F. Storm, 2004/10/18
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Richard Stallman, 2004/10/18
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/10/18
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/10/18
- Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use, Kim F. Storm, 2004/10/19