Re: how to speed up Lisp devel time

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> (interactive (if (numberp current-prefix-arg)
>>                  (list current-prefix-arg)
>>                current-prefix-arg))
>
> If you need to support a numeric optional argument, "p" is
> all you need. Anything else is redundant over-engineering
> at best.

Not here, I want M-x to be the default behavior since the 1 is
implicit. The code you suggested isn't equivalent to mine.

>> That, (interactive "p"), is the same as sending 1 on M-x, but
>> here we want it to be the default behavior. Since nothing is
>> stated explicitely.
>> 
>> M-x should be default, just as (function-name) should
>> be default.
>> 
>> But it should be possible to do C-u 1 M-x to set 'end' to 1.
>
> It makes no sense to have "M-x" do something different from
> "C-u 1 M-x", when the argument says how many times to do
> some job.

The interface is very consistent and easy to understand:

For interactive as well as non-interactive use:

- no explicit data -> use default value;
  explicit data -> use it

- same default values

- same validation checks

> This is why in Emacs we use this convention consistently in
> all the commands.

Emacs has tons of conventions and I don't believe in that
method, to some extent - maybe - instead I believe in
automating stuff and have *the computer* check the soundness
of things rather than to put it as list in the documentation
and expect people to do it ever on.

;; This is a comment. Every comment should look like it

That is another thing, but no, I don't believe in that method.

But that besides the point, this whole thread isn't about
_this_ interface!

> You are free to use other conventions in your code, but
> that's not how Emacs commands work, and we require any
> command to adhere to that convention.

*sigh*

> When you want to allow the user to specify more than
> a single argument to a command, things usually become much
> more complicated, so it is best to avoid such commands.

...

> If you must do that, a separate prompt for each argument is
> better than tricky conventions regarding the value of
> prefix arg.

Tricky conventions that is

        M-x -  (expt 4 0) -  1 (instead, since implicit, use default) 
    C-u M-x -  (expt 4 1) -  4 (same)
C-u C-u M-x -  (expt 4 2) - 16 (same)
  C-u n M-x -                n (same)

Too tricky for you, okay. Whatever, it isn't for me and the
thread was, again, not about this particular interface, but
... ah, forget it.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal