Hello,
Kyle Meyer writes:
> I'm confused why called-interactively-p's docstring suggests that
> form.
I'm also confused. The more I read the docstring, the less I understand
it. Ah well.
> At any rate, it won't do here:
>
> (funcall (lambda ()
>(interactive)
>
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Kyle Meyer writes:
[...]
>> Using an additional argument whose only purpose is to serve as a
>> interactive flag, which is what called-interactively-p's docstring
>> suggests, avoids these issues.
>
> I'd rather avoid this. What about using
>
> (not (or executing-kb
Kyle Meyer writes:
> Won't using a numeric prefix argument change the behavior for both
> interactive and Lisp calls?
>
> As examples,
>
> * M-1 M-x org-sort-list is currently interpreted as a non-nil value
> for WITH-CASE. Instead, it would be indistinguishable from M-x
> org-sort-lis
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Kyle Meyer writes:
>
>> I think (interactive "p"), or (interactive "P\np"), would be undesirable
>> because we'd be 1) changing the call signatures in a way that's not
>> backward compatible and 2) positioning an argument that shouldn't
>> concern most users toward the
Hello,
Kyle Meyer writes:
> I think (interactive "p"), or (interactive "P\np"), would be undesirable
> because we'd be 1) changing the call signatures in a way that's not
> backward compatible and 2) positioning an argument that shouldn't
> concern most users toward the front of the argument lis
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Kyle Meyer writes:
[...]
>> So I'm fine removing called-interactively-p from org-table-sort-lines,
>> but I'm not sure how it should behave, particularly with respect to the
>> column prompt.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Couldn't we use (interactive "p") instead, as suggested
