bug#17446: 24.4.50; What is the situation around `called-interactively-p'?

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > So what to do actually to fix such issues ?
> 
> Use an additional argument (you can call it `interactive'),
> provided by the `interactive' spec?
> 
> > Do you plan to make something better around the terrible
> > `called-interactively-p' ?
> 
> We have that already: the extra arg, as suggested in C-h
> f called-interactively-p.

Sure, we already do that.  But that doesn't help when you define
a "command similar to `repeat-complex-command'", as Thierry says,
and as I have done too.  Such a command has little control over
the definition of the command that it invokes.

> > That's ok, but what to do when nothing else is possible ?
> 
> AFAIK something else is always possible and preferable.  But I don't
> know enough about your problem to know that it's indeed also the case in
> your situation.

I thought he described it pretty well.  Write a command that is
similar to `repeat-complex-command'.  Now make it work-around Emacs
bug #14136.

You end up doing for your new command something like what Emacs
does for `repeat-complex-command'.  And AFAICT, that works only
when the helper function (similar to vanilla Emacs function
`repeat-complex-command--called-interactively-skip') is
byte-compiled.