Re: position on changing defaults?

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > AFAICT, the approach I proposed where most/all the movement commands get
> > > changed to call a special function in the interactive spec wouldn't
> > > suffer from any such problems.  I think it's the best approach so far.
>
> > I can not see what the advantage with an interactive spec over a property on
> > the function name is. Could you please tell?
>
> Very simple: no magic, no pre/post-command-hook.


Why is an interactive spec less magic than the property on a function 
name? To the end user (non-lisper) it could be equally visible, or?

The pre-pre/post-post-command-hook I proposed has nothing to do with 
this, or? (I believe such a hook could be used for other emulations too, 
like Viper.)