Re: Errors in interactive commands

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

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 16:41, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>> Examples such like this one is why I propose using something like
>>> (throw 'command-level) instead of raising an error.
>> How would that change anything, apart from breaking code that tries to
>> catch the error?  Raising an error throws to top-level by default
>> anyway.
>
> Exactly.  I think signalling errors is not a bad approach, tho it should
> be improved to use `user-error' rather than just `error' for cases which
> are normally associated with user errors (which are usually listed in
> debug-ignored-errors).  This way we won't need as many regexps in
> debug-ignored-errors.

My bad, I misremembered. Yes, changing the errors in commands called
interactively to user-error is what we discussed.

Is user-error implemented now?

Should user-error be raised even when the commands are not called
interactively? (Otherwise a macro handling this could perhaps be
good.)