Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[David Kastrup]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>> I think that `interactive' codes are much better than symbol properties
>>>> for defining the meaning of a command.
>>> Yes, but the problem here is rather that you may need to redefine
>>> which commands should deactivate the mark. Doing that with a symbol
>>> property makes it much more flexible.
>>
>> Read "flexible" as "conveniently hot-patchable around things not
>> designed for it".  We have a policy not to use advice (another hotpatch
>> facility) for components distributed as part of Emacs because we want
>> all information pertaining to a particular function accessible and
>> readable from a single location in a clear manner.
>>
>> I don't see this any different.  If there is a need for a user to
>> hot-patch around functions not designed for it, advice is still
>> available.
>
> But I believe this will only affect things on the command level. Is
> not that a big difference?

The "command level" is distinguished by interactive forms.  So there is
a difference in that we _already_ have a standard location where the
command level behavior is determined, namely the interactive form.

If people really want to hot-patch command behavior manually by poking
around with properties rather than advice, the 'interactive-form
property already provides enough leeway for that.

I don't see that we want to open the floodgates for all sort of bypasses
for command-specific properties attached to something other than the
interactive form.

-- 
David Kastrup