Re: debug-on-entry question

[Richard Stallman]

    > For example, a user could define his own version of `b' in `(interactive
    > "b...")'. Instead of having to find all occurrences of `(interactive
    > "b...")' and replacing each of them with his own `(interactive (list
    > (my-read-buffer...)...)...)', he could just redefine what `(interactive
    > "b...")' means, in a single place. IOW, why not make the "bindings" 
between
    > the `interactive' code letters (e.g. `b') and their input-reading 
functions
    > available to users?

    Rewriting it in Lisp implies that you will be able to redefine default
    code letters easily if you want.

I think that allowing customization at that level is asking for
trouble.  Customizating details of how a specific letter `b' works is
not a problem, but letting programs simply redefine these codes is
asking for trouble.  What if two different packages both define Q but
define it in different ways?

It is much better if people keep on handling such cases by writing
Lisp code as they already have.  So aI will not entertain the idea
of adding a new feature of this kind.