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

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

"Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie> writes:

> I'm curious, though: if (interactive ARG MODES...) is neither forward
> nor backward compatible,

I'm not sure what you mean by "forward compatible" here...  Emacs 29
should be able to use it just fine?

> and is equivalent to (declare (modes MODES...)), then why not allow
> only the latter syntax?  Or am I missing something?

Since approx. 97% of commands will eventually have this markup, that
means that 97% of commands will start with

  (declare (modes foo-mode))
  (interactive "p")

and that seems like too much line noise.  We don't have to make Emacs
Lisp into Java.

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