Re: Smarter M-x that filters on major-mode

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

jao <jao@gnu.org> writes:

> it's perhaps more tricky, but it could also be
>
>      (interactive 'c-mode)
>
> which is distinguisable from a string or a form:
>
>      (interactive "p")
>      (interactive (list a b))
>
> i.e., one adopts the convention that if the argument's value is a
> symbol, it denotes a mode.  personally, i would like that option even
> better, but i'd understand people might consider it a bit brittle.

Hm...  It's possible, but it seems a bit hacky, I think.

I'm trying to remember why I came up with the `command' thing instead of
`interactive' the last time this was discussed, but I haven't found
it...  it's possible (back then) that I somehow imagined that
`interactive' took a &rest instead of an &optional, and that would make
it necessary to introduce a new form.

But that's wrong, obviously, so I think I'll just rework this stuff to
use `interactive', so it'll be

  (interactive nil foo-mode bar-mode)

all over the place instead of

  (command (foo-mode bar-mode))

That is, I think you're right that introducing a new form here doesn't
help much.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no