From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:59:20 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87pt3m5vqk.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> <87zn2mh5jk.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87is99nznd.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <200410172053.i9HKrdL01136@raven.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1098108079 5181 80.91.229.6 (18 Oct 2004 14:01:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net, storm@cua.dk Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 18 16:01:13 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CJY4X-0002fr-00 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:01:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJYBo-0004CR-Q6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:08:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJYAH-0003Xx-5a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:07:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJYAF-0003Wr-Aa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:07:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJYAF-0003WQ-4V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:07:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CJY2j-0000zD-Ep for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:59:21 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CJY2i-0001Js-H2; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:59:20 -0400 Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-reply-to: <200410172053.i9HKrdL01136@raven.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:53:39 -0500 (CDT)) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:28568 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28568 If the macro is called with M-1000 or M-0, then, if nothing else, all these messages might slow macro execution down. That is the motive for the existing definition of interactive-p. It is not clear to me whether we are currently discussing _changing_ the behavior of `interactive-p', or declaring it obsolete. Someone proposed declaring it obsolete, but that by itself won't solve the problem. The immediate problem is that there are many uses of interactive-p, and many of them, perhaps all, are now incorrect. We need to either change those uses or change interactive-p. If we change interactive-p, the uses which are now incorrect will become correct. However, any uses which are now correct would need to be changed. These are the ONLY two approaches that would make these commands correct. The first step in fixing this is to take inventory. Which uses of interactive-p are correct with the current definition of interactive-p? Which would be correct with the modified definition of interactive-p that would not check for macros? Would someone like to check them? On the other hand, there also is the problem that `interactive-p' returns t while _defining_ a keyboard macro. It would appear to be deceiving to the user to have different behavior while _defining_ the macro and while executing it. If we change the definition, it won't check for macros at all.