>>>>> Glenn Morris writes: > It's easy to search for prior discussion on this. Eg > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-07/msg00326.html > That would defeat the whole purpose (which is to force the author to make > a choice between the two kinds, rather than to use one without knowing > that there's a choice). I do not think this is a good argument. Desiring authors to know about such a distinction is one thing; so document it well. But forcing authors who *do* know the distinction to be explicit about it always -- just so they don't miss out on becoming educated the first time -- is poor design. Simple and common patterns should be simple, because they are common. They should not be made laborious "to promote education". If a developer is uneducated about the options, they can be made aware. This isn't the only place where a mistake can be made by choosing an incorrect option without warning. Is a bad argument to `called-interactively-p' really so dangerous that we require a conscious choice for every point of use? Cargo-culting will result in this explicit option being copied without understanding anyway, so the explicitness is not a guarantee against misuse. I'm completely OK with a patch to undeprecate (interactive-p), even if this reverses previous decisions. I do not feel beholden to past thinking that makes little sense to me, just for petty consistency; I trust people can learn to adapt to any change we make (or, in this case, unmake). -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2