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

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 07/06/2016 03:09 AM, John Wiegley wrote:

> 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.

I think the reasons for making it verbose and in-your-face are rather 
clearly decribed in the last paragraphs of called-interactively-p's 
docstring.

As the docstring explains, the function in question should be used 
rarely, if at all. It should follow that the verbosity of its calling 
convention can't be a significant problem.

> Simple and common patterns should be simple, because they are common.

"simple and common", yes.