From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 29.0.60; keymap-local-set and keymap-global-set became less strict Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:11:58 +0200 Message-ID: <83sffksi0x.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5876987d-2479-f512-5767-218c8c16a909@daniel-mendler.de> <875ycngyji.fsf@gnus.org> <87zg9zvzuc.fsf@gmail.com> <831qna3frm.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt5yogct.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1pi1wz4.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilgmodk4.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt5y1r5u.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkmdo8e4.fsf@gmail.com> <831qn91qo0.fsf@gnu.org> <137753af-777d-2da3-c111-7e2d414633f1@daniel-mendler.de> <83sffpze9h.fsf@gnu.org> <309dee07-e404-4f84-a839-8b99815376f8@daniel-mendler.de> <83mt5xz42d.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt5vuewj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18981"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mail@daniel-mendler.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 05 08:12:47 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pOZCh-0004o4-Dv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2023 08:12:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pOZBy-00062K-Fj; Sun, 05 Feb 2023 02:12:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pOZBv-00061c-Kw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2023 02:12:00 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pOZBt-00040g-FV; Sun, 05 Feb 2023 02:11:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=foYNjkPg/ZnMSIqK4CrBM5zZb66O6rLAhhoVismWm7Y=; b=GxyhtNjpoPHEpy0VRUn2 KIEZy5MujPzbMis8o7vpUWOvfBFfnTDfZswHYY0Wl9rWRnHiy3lgyzM3gMpDSN2sp25uUlbElIYiF o0KjiBwnjptWoXSmSu6Ld+8xIOj5kkbOr7GBlXnj/vA9vP0vaBql3PloYgdPhoHMUtFmhU1XQ9Lvp guGytxKd8llMfhDu2TAZOnVRR7ebaw8VUmVIUkNKb5/xuBoerJBMpTJfd9yDGvs5pwLGcB6nmVCPY 26OyCnjcLmkvtaDIqhKS7Rx3swrnNvMtEvaYQWU54nELt7U33YXH0V+Fgo++ihAy2Y0G2bylZ5/p5 fRgXUeAm0/U02Q==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pOZBl-00070I-Qt; Sun, 05 Feb 2023 02:11:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 23:27:10 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:302993 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: mail@daniel-mendler.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2023 23:27:10 -0500 > > > > > 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. The two functions which are being discussed here are named in the Subject. > 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." If needed, this is possible in this case, although we don't expect that to happen in practice.