RE: [External] : Re: master 927b885 1/3: Disable filtering of commands in M-x completion

[Drew Adams]

> Presumably Drew yanks in the definition of 'foo' which does push the
> mark.  Hence the "mark will have been set" at the time he does "eval
> that defun".  The recipe above is then probably botched.

More or less, yes.  I was not yanking anything
but I typed it in *scratch* and used `C-M-x'.

Just using `M-:', I see that the error is always
raised (regardless of the value of
`mark-even-if-inactive').

But see my remarks about the doc of `interactive'
code `r'.  This isn't covered at all by that.

And the doc of `mark-even-if-inactive' says
nothing about the mark existing - it's only about
whether the mark (assuming it exists) is active.