Re: 29.0.60; keymap-local-set and keymap-global-set became less strict

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: mail@daniel-mendler.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2023 23:27:10 -0500
> 
>   > >   > The advertised API wouldn't change.  We don't expect anyone to use the
>   > >   > additional argument in non-interactive invocation.  We can use
>   > >   > advertised-calling-convention declaration to hide that argument from
>   > >   > documented interfaces.
>   > > 
>   > > Why hide it?   It's better to document it.
>   > > Occasionally, passing a nontrivial value for that argument is useful.
> 
>   > We don't want Lisp programs to call this function pretending to be the
>   > user, because this function's raison d'être is to catch invalid key
>   > sequences.
> 
> I thought we were talking about the general question, comparing
> various nethods for distinguishing an interactive call.  You seem to
> be talking about why some specific function wants to know when it is
> called interactively.  But I don't know which function it is.

The two functions which are being discussed here are named in the
Subject.

> In general, when a function does something different for an interactive call.
> it may be useful for its caller to say, "Treat this call as interactive."

If needed, this is possible in this case, although we don't expect
that to happen in practice.