[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: perhaps rephrase "misplaced interactive spec"
From: |
Barry Margolin |
Subject: |
Re: perhaps rephrase "misplaced interactive spec" |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:45:19 -0400 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <87iomdusvs.fsf@debian.uxu>,
Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:
> Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
>
> > (define-minor-mode MODE DOC ...
> >
> > so I wonder why I just didn't get a
> > wrong-number-of-arguments? That would have instantly
> > made it clear.
>
> Aha, now I see, it is because of those others :property
> arguments. So it is more complicated.
>
> Is the reason for having those (:some thing) that some
> can be provided, and others left out? Is that
> implemented function-by-function (like a C binary or
> shell function that has to decode what options were
> passed)?
>
> (define-minor-mode MODE DOC &optional INIT-VALUE
> LIGHTER KEYMAP &rest BODY)
>
> Although it was more complicated than I thought, that
> doesn't make the warning message any more clear...
> Especially since it works just fine (the minor mode)
> without the docstring it gets even more confusing.
This type of thing tends to happen when functions and macros evolve over
time. Probably the original definition was just
(define-minor-mode MODE DOC &rest BODY)
Then someone decided to add options, and the most obvious place to add
them was before the BODY.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***