From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 03:49:33 +0200
It says these syntaxes "declare how completion should happen" or one of
them "can be used as a general predicate to say whether the command
should be present when completing with 'M-x TAB'", but neither have any
effect unless the user customizes read-extended-command-predicate.
The previous entry (the one about (interactive "p" dired-mode)) doesn't
mention the predicate user option either.
Should read-extended-command-predicate be set to
#'command-completion-default-include-p by default? Otherwise the NEWS
entries (at least one of them) should probably mention it.
Thanks, I added the caveat to these NEWS entries.
When reading the manual (subsection "Specifying Modes For Commands"),
I'm feeling a similar problem.
command-completion-default-include-p *is* mentioned, but only somewhere
in the middle.
That's a 75-line node, so "in the middle" is also "close to the
beginning". In fact, it mentions it immediately after explaining the
issue and saying that Emacs has a mechanism for tagging commands as
being specific to modes. I don't see how this could be moved earlier
without severely disrupting the text didactically.
The intro gives the impression that "specifying modes" will have an
effect by default.
I don't think so, but I now tried to make it even more evident.
* Change the 'M-x' binding to call execute-extended-command-for-buffer
instead. The behavior of execute-extended-command won't change, but
that probably isn't going to save anybody: the user who set up the
binding to call that command explicitly is probably rare.
* Have the subsection be actually about the command
execute-extended-command-for-buffer. Mention its binding (M-X) and say
that (interactive nil dired-mode) affects its behavior. Then mention
that by customizing read-extended-command-predicate the user can have
'M-x' behaving like that as well. If they like.
I've added the reference to execute-extended-command-for-buffer and
its binding.