Re: debug-on-entry question

[Juri Linkov]

>     There are other commands using `a' letter to read function names (like
>     `elp-instrument-function', etc.) where getting the default function name
>     from the current buffer would be useful too.  So maybe it's better to
>     implement this in `call-interactively' for all commands using `a'?
>
> That seems like a good idea.

I have ideas for improving other code letters (for example, using ffap
for `f', `F', `D'), but they are much easier implementable in Lisp.

> 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.

The problem is in changing existing code letters.  Emacs allows
customization of almost everything down to redefining built-in core
functions, but disallows customization of default methods for reading
input arguments.  This is an artificial restriction contradicting the
principles of Emacs customization.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/