From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:48:37 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87pt3m5vqk.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> <87zn2mh5jk.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87is99nznd.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <200410172053.i9HKrdL01136@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200410190158.i9J1wrH25523@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200410200127.i9K1Rpp28384@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200410212213.i9LMDTH22583@raven.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1098506952 26713 80.91.229.6 (23 Oct 2004 04:49:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net, storm@cua.dk Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 23 06:49:05 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 1CLDpx-0008CK-00 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:49:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLDxT-00021D-EF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:56:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CLDxI-0001zZ-VS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:56:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CLDxI-0001yq-7g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:56:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLDxI-0001yb-3C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:56:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CLDpg-0001Q7-Qc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:48:48 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CLDpV-0001ql-Ab; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:48:37 -0400 Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-reply-to: <200410212213.i9LMDTH22583@raven.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:13:29 -0500 (CDT)) 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:28765 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28765 Trying to solve the problem by changing interactive-p makes in my opinion no sense, because if you sometimes need the message in a keyboard macro, you automatically also sometimes need the message from Lisp, for instance if you translate your keyboard macro into a Lisp function for efficiency. Calling how-many in a translated macro and writing a Lisp program to call it are different kinds of usage. There are many messages that make no sense when called from a keyboard macro, so the present behavior of `interactive-p' makes sense. In situations where the message should appear in a keyboard macro, one should always use an argument, because then you will sometimes also need to print the message from Lisp. This is an interesting argument. If this means interactive-p should not be changed, then we really need to look at the many existing calls to interactive-p and see if they should be rewritten to use the other technique. This argument assumes that people who wrote this code knew what they were doing. I can't assume that. I want to see what sort of messages they really are. I want someone to look at them. The argument assumed that _keyboard macro users_ know what they want their macros to do. It assumes that they chose this behavior deliberately among various options. That is clearly not usually so. They used command FOO because they wanted its effects, and they probably did not consider rewriting FOO at all.