Re: Making `interactive' conditional

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>
>> I think that pretending that "foo" is not interactive just because you're
>> not in the right context is going too far.
>
> Lots of great discussion on this feature while I was away for a few days!
> After reading the comments, it does seem that changing core to get a smarter
> M-x isn't the best plan right now.
>
> While some may want a more narrow and efficient M-x, others just
> don't,

Nobody proposed to force people to use the feature. What you have seen
is the usual drama and hysteria display typical of emacs-devel.

> for discovery purposes.

Anyone is free to refrain from using the feature for whatever reason.
But having the commands that apply to the current buffer (plus the
global ones) listed on M-x is something that enhances discovery, unless
you are interested on *all* of Emacs *all* the time.

> Also, it's hard to properly define a "context" for when
> commands should appear, since for some, that notion varies.
>
> And, well, Stefan's argument about impurity sold me. I have a feeling he knew
> it would, too. :)
>
> I'd still love to see a faster, more apropos M-x develop in ELPA, if anyone is
> interested in making that happen.

As Lars said, instrumentalization is required.