Re: position on changing defaults?

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
> AFAICT, the approach I proposed where most/all the movement commands get
> changed to call a special function in the interactive spec wouldn't
> suffer from any such problems.  I think it's the best approach so far.

I can not see what the advantage with an interactive spec over a 
property on the function name is. Could you please tell?

To me Kim's suggestion using a property seems much more flexible and 
easier to implement.

And for the actual implementation of activating/deactivating the mark I 
can not see the advantage of doing it directly in the command loop 
instead of in special hooks before and after pre/post-command-hook. 
Doing it there seems more flexible to me and it can also be implemented 
in elisp. (But maybe this is not an issue at all?)