Re: Making `interactive' conditional

[Óscar Fuentes]

Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:

[snip]

> We disagree.  It seems pretty clear to me that the proposal
> is about `M-x' filtering, not just about annotating functions
> with suggested context information.

The M-x filtering will be optional. Without activating the filtering,
M-x will behave exactly as it does now.

Given this premise, it is obvious that your worries are unfounded.

> But it also seems clear that the proposal is, so far, quite
> vague.
>
> Just what kind of annotation and how it will be specified
> (associated with commands), and what kind of `M-x'
> filtering and how it will (or won't) be controlled by users -
> such things have not been specified clearly, if at all.

The proposal, as far as I'm concerned, and as Lars stated it, is about
M-x (optionally!) displaying only those commands that are associated to
the active major/minor modes on the current buffer, plus the "global"
commands (`dired', etc). I extended the proposal to cover other
qualities, such as if the buffer is read-only, if it is visiting a file,
etc. For achieving that it is necessary to annotate the commands with
the required info.

What's not clear about that proposal?

Others proposed to use the scheme for doing others things, but that's
not the original proposal which I (and Lars, AFAIU) plan to implement.