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

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > >   > 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.

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."

For instance, if `foo' does something special if called interactively,
and `bar' calls `foo', maybe `bar' wants to check for an interactive
call and pass that along to `foo'.  With an argument to distinguish,
that is eas for `foo' to do.  With `callsd-interactiely-p',
it seems impossible.



-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)