Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

["Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

David Kastrup wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>>> I think that `interactive' codes are much better than symbol properties
>>>>> for defining the meaning of a command.
>>>> Yes, but the problem here is rather that you may need to redefine
>>>> which commands should deactivate the mark. Doing that with a symbol
>>>> property makes it much more flexible.
>>> Read "flexible" as "conveniently hot-patchable around things not
>>> designed for it".  We have a policy not to use advice (another hotpatch
>>> facility) for components distributed as part of Emacs because we want
>>> all information pertaining to a particular function accessible and
>>> readable from a single location in a clear manner.
>>>
>>> I don't see this any different.  If there is a need for a user to
>>> hot-patch around functions not designed for it, advice is still
>>> available.
>> But I believe this will only affect things on the command level. Is
>> not that a big difference?
> 
> The "command level" is distinguished by interactive forms.  So there is
> a difference in that we _already_ have a standard location where the
> command level behavior is determined, namely the interactive form.
> 
> If people really want to hot-patch command behavior manually by poking
> around with properties rather than advice, the 'interactive-form
> property already provides enough leeway for that.
> 
> I don't see that we want to open the floodgates for all sort of bypasses
> for command-specific properties attached to something other than the
> interactive form.

Can you provide an example of how to change the interactive form for an 
existing function (without using advice of course)?