Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[David Kastrup]

"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:39 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>  > Can you provide an example of how to change the interactive form for
>>  > an existing function (without using advice of course)?
>
>>  (put 'forward-char 'interactive-form '(interactive "*p"))
>
> ???
>
> But you previously said:
>
>> Attaching information magically to symbols rather than the actual
>> function seems much more unwise to me.
>
> In which way is 'interactive-form not that "attaching information
> magically to symbols"?

Sigh.  I never claimed that it wasn't.  Could you please reread the
thread?  What I said is that the interactive-form property already
provides an inconsistency in that it attaches to the symbol rather than
the function.  People have argued that this is the perfect excuse to
introduce further such inconsistencies not even related to interactive
forms at all.

All I said that the presence of the interactive-form property should not
be used to open the floodgates in that manner, in particular since one
can employ it for this particular purpose if one really, really thinks
this a good idea.

Personally, I don't like the inconsistency introduced by this property.
But it would be even more foolish not to make use of it except as an
excuse for introducing further redundant inconsistencies.

At least this inconsistency is openly connected with interactive forms
(and interactive forms are the proper place to deal with interactive
calls).

The proposed other properties would not even have that connection.

-- 
David Kastrup