Re: interactive-p and called-interactively-p

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 > The name `called-interactively-p' is good because
 > it relates to the use of `interactive'.

Relates, yes, but in fact called-interactively-p means "I wasn't
invoked interactively, I was called while executing a keyboard macro."
I find *that* confusing.

 > The name `interactive-p' is confusing because it does NOT relate.

`interactive-p' refers to the user interaction that invoked a command,
and in particular that arguments were gathered using an interactive
spec.  It tells the function that its arguments and environment have
been arranged for the convenience of user interaction, not as an
efficient API, and therefore they may need to be massaged.  This has
*never* been a source of confusion that I can recall.

It's been that way for two decades AFAIK.  Do you really mean to
change this now?