Re: interactive-p and called-interactively-p

[Chong Yidong]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> but I think the important point is that its name fits its meaning.
>> The name interactive-p does not correspond to its meaning, and users
>> very often guess wrong about what it does.
>
> This is clearly true, but while confusion has been common, it hasn't
> been an actual problem either.  And in any case, as I mentioned, we
> should rather encourage programmers to stay avoid from both of
> those functions.

I think the status quo is acceptable.  We already state, in the
doc-string of called-interactively-p, that you can do the same thing
with an interactive spec.  Further tinkering is just noise.