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

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 14.02.2021 16:23, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> > 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.

Seeing how it looks more like a keyword argument than a type 
specification, maybe CL rather than Java?

'declare' is a pretty standard tool we have, so if the command already 
has some declarations, one might not end up having to add the extra line 
(this doesn't change things much now, but sometime in the future it 
might, when/if we add more declarations of this kind). Also, no 
enthusiastic package author will end up making their code incompatible 
with Emacs 27 by accident.