Thank you for the review. I had a feeling that
execute-extended-command's calling of prefix-arg was the correct
usage for command-execute. If I drop that from the PATCH, do I
repost to this bug ID email? I'm unfamiliar with the project.

-Kyle

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:12 AM Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kyle Hubert <khubert@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I have a hard time testing the change to simple.el, as I don't understand
> > execute-extended-command. Can anyone help here? I'm worried since it
> isn't
> > using (interactive "P") that this is incorrect. I admit I'm deeper in the
> > guts of emacs than typical.
>
> The simple.el let-binding is around command-execute, not
> execute-extended-command.  command-execute does specifically read
> prefix-arg, so I think that part of your patch should be dropped (I
> haven't looked in detail at the ediff part, but it sounds right).
>
> >> --- a/lisp/simple.el
> >> +++ b/lisp/simple.el
> >> @@ -1888,7 +1888,7 @@ invoking, give a prefix argument to
> >> `execute-extended-command'."
> >>      ;; `function' and not `execute-extended-command'.  The difference
> is
> >>      ;; visible in cases such as M-x <cmd> RET and then C-x z
> (bug#11506).
> >>      (setq real-this-command function)
> >> -    (let ((prefix-arg prefixarg))
> >> +    (let ((current-prefix-arg prefixarg))
> >>        (command-execute function 'record))
>