[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Placement of list within an interactive clause

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: Placement of list within an interactive clause
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 05:16:28 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/+ () (2022-06-11)

* Christopher Dimech <> [2022-07-17 04:53]:

> > Emacs is very interactive. 
> > 
> > Do you maybe think that functions without (interactive) declaration
> > shall not ask user anything? 
> > 
> > When invoked only from Lisp there are many uses for such functions. 
> Sure, but if you want a fully non-interactive function, do not call 
> minibuffer functionality in the body of the function.

OK and now, how do I apply that advise? If I want X, then do not do
Y. Of course. But how is such advise practically useful?

What you are saying, seem to come from programming theories.

> > Does it really need to be text input to be considered interactive?
> > 
> > Logging of activities may be displayed in a buffer, that is
> > interactive too. Input alone is not interaction. Changing Emacs style
> > is also interaction and need not be invoked interactively.
> Defining interaction too broadly makes it useless, because it cannot 
> distinguish between anything.  For emacs, interaction should always
> be associated with direct user input (never with automatic input or
> customisation within the program through elisp, unless you ask the user
> to directly input operational inputs).

If you decide to manipulate paragraph it is direct user input. If you
press button to open browser it is direct user input. All key presses
represent direct user input.

Including sound recording, it is also direct user input.

What would be example of indirect user input? Let me know about it.

> For the broader context one can describe "intercommunication" with emacs.
> Interactive in emacs in most times associated with user interaction via
> M-x or keybinding.

Word may have different definitions. Which definition applies depends
of the context of the word. You are mixing both Emacs definition of
(interactive) and common definitions. And then you insist that a beep,
flash, movement of window borders, text scaling, paragraph
manipulations and similar are not interactive, but only minibuffer
input is to be considered interactive. And now we have a new word
"intercommunication" as well. Too much theory, too little practical
use. In general, theory does not bring nothing without practical use.

What is (interactive) is not same as "interactive" as in English


Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:

In support of Richard M. Stallman

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]