Re: FW: RE: RE: [External] : Making a function than can only be used interactively

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2022 at 10:40 AM
> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: "'Help-Gnu-Emacs (help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org)'" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Subject: FW: RE: RE: [External] :  Making a function than can only be used 
> interactively
>
> I guess this was maybe intended for the help list?

It was.  Thanks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 2:15 PM
> To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> >
> > > > Has any concrete description been presented
> > > > in this thread that makes clear what the real
> > > > problem to be solved is - the use case behind
> > > > the question?
> > >
> > > The filling of arguments could be difficult
> > > if a sequence of interactive prompt depend
> > > on previous values.
> >
> > Hard to guess what you mean.  Example?
> >
> > What's to prevent someone from calling the
> > function (whatever it is) with appropriate
> > arguments, whether or not some of them depend
> > on others?
> >
> > > One thing that has been discussed is the following
> > > (defun foo ()
> > >  (interactive)
> > >  (let ((a ...)
> > >        (b ...)
> > >        (c ...))
> > >   ...))
> >
> > Didn't Stefan show that only to indicate that
> > you can prompt for values in the body of a
> > function, instead of (or in addition to) doing
> > so in an `interactive' spec?
>
> Yes.  That strategy could easily make a function inappropriate
> for non-interactive use.  The result would not necessarily be
> a result of bad design.
>
> > IOW, presumably he was suggesting that some of
> > the "..." to provide values for a, b, and c
> > could come from prompting a user - IOW, making
> > the function interactive regardless of how
> > it's called.
> >
> > I don't see what that has to do with any
> > problem of "filling arguments" when calling
> > from Lisp.
> >
> > Sorry, but so far I'm not grasping what the
> > problem is - what OP is really trying to do.
>
> The OP wants to make the function purely interactive.
> But at a low-level, you can't have a function that
> can be called interactively and not non-interactively.
>
> The sensible way out is for the OP to include its inappropriateness
> for use in elisp code in the documentation.  Either that, or using
> a specific part-name separated by "--" for the function name, as
> indicator that function is inappropriate for elisp code.  Emacs
> has done this strategy before.
>
> > But again, I only skimmed the thread.  If you
> > think the question / use case is clear to
> > others then please ignore my feedback.
>
> Although I understand it, the result would either be unreliable or
> too cumbersome for actual use.
>
>
>
>
>