Re: perhaps rephrase "misplaced interactive spec"

[Emanuel Berg]

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.

-- 
underground experts united