Re: Defadvice use

[Matthias]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

Thanks for your indication.

> (...) In general, I don't think there's a better way. I would argue
> that if you need to use such an ugly hack, you should only be
> morally allowed to do that after sending a patch that will make it
> unnecessary in the future.

You're true.

I am working on `dired-do-shell-command' and alike
commands (defined in Dired and Dired-X): I'd like them to be
completion compliant via the useful library Shell Command from
Masatoshi Tsuchiya.

The doc spec of `dired-read-shell-command' says `This is an extra
function so that you can redefine it, e.g., to use gmhist.' Dired-X do
this: it redefines the command using `defun'. I feel like it's very
ugly... But my knowledge in elisp is somewhat limited: I am not an
esthète!

So, I question now: Do you recommend that my patch change this (one
could use a variable containing the name of a function...)?
-- 
Matthias