Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-26 9a53b6d: Say how to override a primitive interactive spec

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 17:09:51 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> >> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 09:42:39 -0400
> >> Cc: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
> >> 
> >> > +If you wish to override a primitive interactive specification, just
> >> > +set the @code{interactive-form} property of the primitive function's
> >> > +symbol (@pxref{Using Interactive}).  There is no need to edit C code
> >> > +and recompile Emacs.
> >> 
> >> You can also use advice-add for the same purpose (it's more
> >> complicated, but it's arguably better behaved).
> >
> >And I wonder whether this text belongs to the "Internals" appendix.  I
> >think its discoverability there will be too low.  Why not put it in
> >"Using Interactive", instead of cross-referencing there?
> 
> When you say "this text", are you referring to the new text I just added on the emacs-26 branch in commit 9a53b6d426 (quoted above), or to Stefan's proposed new text (not yet written) about recommending `advice-add' instead?
> 
> I'm pretty sure you meant the latter, but I wanted to make sure of that before commenting further.

No, I meant the former: your original addition.

"Internals" is where the reader learns how to write Emacs primitives
and how some features work internally.  It is a place where Lisp
programmers seldom if ever look for stuff that's important for writing
Lisp programs.  Your text is for those Lisp programmers, so IMO it
doesn't belong where you put it.