Re: master a30781399b3: * subr-x (eval-command-interactive-spec): New function.

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Tue 06 Jun 2023 at 02:59PM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> My primary concern is about documenting useful features.  In which
> files to put the implementation is secondary, from my POV.  We don't
> need to be 110% consistent in this regard, btw.

Okay.  I'll add it to the manual if we decide we're keeping it.

>> Regarding NEWS, CONTRIBUTE says
>>
>>   There is no need to mention files such as NEWS and MAINTAINERS, or to
>>   indicate regeneration of files such as 'lib/gnulib.mk', in the
>>   ChangeLog entry.  "There is no need" means you don't have to, but you
>>   can if you want to.
>>
>> Should that text perhaps be updated?
>
> Why? the last sentence already covers my request, doesn't it?

It seemed to me that the text should say that it's considered preferable
to mention them.  The current text leaves it wholly up to an
individual's inclination.

>> > As for the name of the new function: what do people think about
>> > renaming it to eval-interactive-spec?  I don't think we need the
>> > "command" part.
>>
>> In that case, what would we rename advice-eval-interactive-spec to, when
>> we drop the 'advice-' prefix?
>
> That function exists for quite some time, so renaming it is a much
> harder decision.

If we decide not to rename it, wouldn't it then be confusing to have
advice-eval-interactive-spec and eval-interactive-spec taking different
kinds of argument, with no indication in their name about the difference?

-- 
Sean Whitton