bug#5364: 23.1.91; execute-extended-command should do like FFAP

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> Stefan: Yes but adding our way doesn't hinder your way, It merely adds a
> tip which you can ignore.

An ignorable int is usually OK, but not when it's wrong in 99% of
the cases.  So before accepting such a change I need to be convinced
that it wouldn't bump into false positives too often.

> But telling us to use your way,
> SM> M-b C-M-SPC M-w followed by M-x C-y RET
> is just continuing the stone age punishment for no reason.

I'm not sure if such generally applicable, orthogonal solutions qualify
as "stone age".

> And if we never ran into the need over and over, we wouldn't have
> reported it.  So there.

That's the point I don't understand: how come you bump into it over and
over again?  I can't think of a situation where this would happen more
than once in a blue moon.
I use M-x very often and I can't think of a case where I could have used
such a hint.

So maybe, if you describe the cases where this repeatedly shows up for
you, I can come up with a way to reconcile our difference.


        Stefan