Re: Emacs 25.0.04: Feature Request: Make called-interactively-p's argument optional

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Glenn Morris <address@hidden> writes:

> It's easy to search for prior discussion on this. Eg
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-07/msg00326.html

>    That would defeat the whole purpose (which is to force the author to make
>    a choice between the two kinds, rather than to use one without knowing
>    that there's a choice).

I do not think this is a good argument. Desiring authors to know about such a
distinction is one thing; so document it well. But forcing authors who *do*
know the distinction to be explicit about it always -- just so they don't miss
out on becoming educated the first time -- is poor design.

Simple and common patterns should be simple, because they are common. They
should not be made laborious "to promote education". If a developer is
uneducated about the options, they can be made aware. This isn't the only
place where a mistake can be made by choosing an incorrect option without
warning.

Is a bad argument to `called-interactively-p' really so dangerous that we
require a conscious choice for every point of use? Cargo-culting will result
in this explicit option being copied without understanding anyway, so the
explicitness is not a guarantee against misuse.

I'm completely OK with a patch to undeprecate (interactive-p), even if this
reverses previous decisions. I do not feel beholden to past thinking that
makes little sense to me, just for petty consistency; I trust people can learn
to adapt to any change we make (or, in this case, unmake).

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature