Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> But there is no way to change the DOC string when one tacks a property
>> onto the function.  And that means that the DOC string change and the
>> property tack-on are not inherently _synchronized_.  And that is a bad
>> idea.
>
> I think you are attaching the wrong point. What is important is not
> only the doc string, but what the help system does. Of course the help
> system can take care of this. In this respect there is no problem with
> using a property here.
>
>> Again, this hides away part of the interactive behavior of a command to
>> a different place.  And again, it makes the mechanism depend on the
>> _name_ (aka symbol) of the called function rather than its function
>> definition.
>
> David, may I remind you that I asked you earlier about a way to change
> the interactive spec in the function cell. You answered with a way to
> instead attach a property to the symbol name.

Lennart, may I remind you that this was in answer to your asking for an
example after I pointed out that we _already_ have this interactive-form
property which, misguided as it may be, obliterates the necessity for
further things of its likeness which are not even remotely looking like
they have anything to do with the interactive call.

I am utterly fed up with this sort of game playing.  I did _not_, I
repeat _not_ at any point of time suggest that using _any_ property
_including_ the interactive-form property for stealthily modifying a
function's behavior inside of Emacs was a good idea.  I merely pointed
out that _if_ one wants to follow such an imprudent course, there is no
necessity to _further_ mess around with properties.

I regret giving you the example you requested since you apparently were
only interested in fabricating a strawman from it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum