Re: interactive-p and called-interactively-p

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> 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.

I think the status quo sucks.  I want to get rid of one of the
two functions.  The only question left is "which one".

The reason for it is the following: experience shows that the
distinction between interactive-p and called-interactively-p is very
subtle (it took a long time for people to realize the interactive-p
wasn't always quite right, and usually people just think "I'd like to
know if it's interactive" without thinking about what it really means).

The best way to make such a distinction clearly visible is by providing
an argument.  Even better would be to make the argument mandatory.


        Stefan