From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:41:58 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87zn2mh5jk.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> References: <87pt3m5vqk.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097952147 8107 80.91.229.6 (16 Oct 2004 18:42:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:42:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 16 20:42:15 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CItVP-0003WO-00 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:42:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CItcb-0000e3-KF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:49:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CItcV-0000du-5m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:49:35 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CItcU-0000da-HK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:49:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CItcU-0000dQ-CQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:49:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.54] (helo=tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CItVA-0000MT-4o; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:42:00 -0400 Original-Received: from alfajor ([67.71.33.149]) by tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20041016184159.BBEO26826.tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:41:59 -0400 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C36DC2FD79; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:41:58 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:51:56 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:28490 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28490 >> It seems that interactive-p as currently defined is very rarely useful >> -- perhaps never. Perhaps we should change interactive-p to ignore >> whether the command is running from a macro and do what most people >> seem to expect. > I think we should declare it obsolete because the alternative (of > adding an argument) is always clearer, less brittle, and allows > callers better control. > Before we say it is obsolete, we had better see if anyone does really > want it. It would be very good for someone to determine which, if > any, of the current uses of interactive-p really want the current > behavior of interactive-p. The current behavior can still be obtained without interactive-p by checking executing-macro. Doing it that way also has the advantage of being much more clear. I doubt anybody used interactive-p rather than an extra argument just because of the subtle difference w.r.t keyboard macros. I expect 99% of the people who used interactive-p haven't even thought about the interaction with keyboard macros. Stefan