Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[David Kastrup]

address@hidden (Johan Bockgård) writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The interactive specifications are made part of _functions_ for a
>> reason, even though it makes it somewhat harder to extract them
>> explicitly (using interactive-form). It is inconsistent to attach
>> stuff like that to a property-list that is more or less incidentally
>> part of a symbol that might or might not be the accessor to a function
>> cell.
>
> Too late ;)
>
>> (call-interactively 'woozle)
>>
>> currently is equivalent to
>>
>> (call-interactively (symbol-function 'woozle))
>
> (defun foo (&optional x) (interactive) x)
>
> (fset 'bar 'foo)
> (put 'bar 'interactive-form '(interactive (list 1)))
>
> (call-interactively 'bar)
>   => 1
>
> (call-interactively (symbol-function 'bar))
>   => nil

If your point is that a single inconsistency should be sufficient excuse
to open the floodgates, that actually is a strong argument _against_
introducing _any_ inconsistency.  And it means that we should probably
get rid of that earlier inconsistency.

-- 
David Kastrup