Re: Emacs 25.0.04: Feature Request: Make called-interactively-p's argument optional

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@online.de>]

On 03.07.2016 20:56, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hello, Andreas.
>
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 08:36:56PM +0200, Andreas Röhler wrote:
>
>
>> On 30.06.2016 17:30, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> From: Robert Weiner <rsw@gnu.org>
>>>> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:25:26 -0400
>>>> Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>>>> It would be nice if John and Eli could just make some final
>>>> decision on the interactive-p issue and then put that one to rest,
>>>> whatever it is.
>>> I have no opinion on the subject, except the general principle that
>>> we shouldn't back up on past decisions unless they are truly
>>> disastrous,
>> They are. This is another example from a couple of issues which went
>> wrong last years.  Code was made swollen up and complicated, simple
>> solutions rejected.
> This is the sort of thing liable to make people unhappy with your
> postings.

Hmm, that's not the intended thing.

>    Please say exactly what has become turgid and complicated,
> where simple solutions have been rejected.  Possibly those simple
> solutions were too simple.

The moment interactive-p was deprecated against the form discussed here, 
argued detailed against it. IIRC also did Drew. It already took hours - 
in vain so far.


>
>> BTW a characteristic design-flaw beyond mentioned last days is around
>> use-region-p.  With use-empty-active-region or region-active-p it
>> hardly comes to an end.
> What hardly comes to an end?  Are you talking about a loop in the code,
> our discussion on emacs-devel, or a design flaw not coming to an end?
>

The redundancy should be visible by the symbols given.
Why to employ three symbols pointing at the same?

This also was discussed in extenso and a simple form replaced by a 
complicated one.