"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Again, this hides away part of the interactive behavior of a command to
a different place. And again, it makes the mechanism depend on the
_name_ (aka symbol) of the called function rather than its function
definition.
David, may I remind you that I asked you earlier about a way to change
the interactive spec in the function cell. You answered with a way to
instead attach a property to the symbol name.
Lennart, may I remind you that this was in answer to your asking for an
example after I pointed out that we _already_ have this interactive-form
property which, misguided as it may be, obliterates the necessity for
further things of its likeness which are not even remotely looking like
they have anything to do with the interactive call.
I am utterly fed up with this sort of game playing. I did _not_, I
repeat _not_ at any point of time suggest that using _any_ property
_including_ the interactive-form property for stealthily modifying a
function's behavior inside of Emacs was a good idea. I merely pointed
out that _if_ one wants to follow such an imprudent course, there is no
necessity to _further_ mess around with properties.
I regret giving you the example you requested since you apparently were
only interested in fabricating a strawman from it.