Re: debug-on-entry question

[Juri Linkov]

> However, that would only help with uses of `call-interactively', not
> uses of `interactive' itself.

I don't understand what you mean.  `interactive' is just a specification.
`call-interactively' interprets it.

> It's probably not feasible (and I foresee immediate dismissal of the idea,
> regardless of feasibility), but what about also having a mechanism to let
> users extend (redefine) the predefined `interactive' code letters?
>
> For example, a user could define his own version of `b' in `(interactive
> "b...")'. Instead of having to find all occurrences of `(interactive
> "b...")' and replacing each of them with his own `(interactive (list
> (my-read-buffer...)...)...)', he could just redefine what `(interactive
> "b...")' means, in a single place. IOW, why not make the "bindings" between
> the `interactive' code letters (e.g. `b') and their input-reading functions
> available to users?

Rewriting it in Lisp implies that you will be able to redefine default
code letters easily if you want.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/