From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master a30781399b3: * subr-x (eval-command-interactive-spec): New function. Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 10:39:50 -0400 Message-ID: References: <168595059426.2523.2109338263713299231@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20230605073635.19060C00613@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <875y80g7p8.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24571"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sean Whitton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 09 16:40:36 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1q7dI3-0006Ct-Uf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 16:40:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q7dHS-0001hV-FF; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 10:39:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q7dHQ-0001fi-U0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 10:39:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q7dHP-0006ko-5G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 10:39:56 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F257280292; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0611F8027A; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:39:51 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1686321591; bh=0zCkbAN7Hds1L+uxNeB0HDQq69HuktlJ4juCaRBVAwU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=f7Yz6TqE+z88h10/5sOQZHZR19nswIgAiIeWuS0sXJZ3fIIsEzmgq5JDc+lE1bWvH mqzMLY+pvgNnzPqVXPHC5DDvFFHAOtc74sce/R5/zkqSXeOgH8FO2FyGF1aHzBzaVD wcn+OC6EbxRS2c612vlAsBc/FB+yzTKMAyCacJCJdYRDeB/OFcJv5pFUVjURQcUi0f 8dibe1XQJA9rfBIr9O3F79YbjednZqwdKKAD3JwGyigUghKRkrtEMfiRnkjPrilgqy EBjp0rf89HBLIIFCIzkPS7Xtl/8Qd7mdoxoS9kmbGW0agBZi4yGF73OHFzO5hOwM6w vNmdoD0Lcv1xw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.44.229.252]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAB4912042E; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:39:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <875y80g7p8.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (Sean Whitton's message of "Tue, 06 Jun 2023 12:18:27 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:306712 Archived-At: >> And why is that preferable over `(advice-)eval-interactive-spec`? > > You mean, why is it worth factoring out > > (advice-eval-interactive-spec (cadr (interactive-form command))) > > ? Yes. > Well, it's indeed less worth factoring out now that you've pointed out > my mistake about interactive-form, but it seems seems worth it to me on > balance. AFAICT the functionality of `advice-eval-interactive-spec` is not used often at all, so having a specialized version for the specific case when it's applied to (cadr (interactive-form command)) seems hard to justify. Can you point to (potential) users? Stefan