Re: Advicing the `interactive' form of a command

> the interactive form is probably never evaluated as such, but it may
> likewise get dissected, and maybe the whole thing could be replaced by
> something like
>
>       (advice-add 'foo :interactive
>         (lambda (ispec)
>           ...
>           (advice-eval-interactive-spec ispec)
>           ...)))

Yes, that's actually the ideal form, tho I'd even tweak it to:

    (advice-add 'foo :interactive
      (lambda (ispec-fun)
        ...
        (funcall ispec-fun)
        ...)))

The `:interactive-only` thingy I just added goes a tiny step in the
direction you suggest by announcing that the whole

    (lambda (&rest _)
      (interactive ...)
      nil)

wrapper is "thrown away".  I did that instead of what you suggest for
two reasons:

- I was looking for a way to document the current functionality rather
  than improve it (it just so happened that adding
  a `:interactive-form` seemed to make it easier to document it).
- I think adding your `:interactive` would require a bit more work
  (and encourage further changes, maybe).

So, I'd encourage you to take a stab at it.

> So (advice-eval-interactive-spec ispec) is essentially an (eval ispec)
> [or (apply ispec), in the spirit of what :around does to the body of a
> function].

Very much so, yes.

> But advice-eval-interactive-spec is maybe less important to advertise
> this entire feature than (interactive (lambda (ispec) ...))
> or :interactive.  (While trying to solve my problem, at some point
> I was looking for something like :interactive because this appeared to
> me like a natural strategy to address my problem.)

Indeed, that's why I felt adding `:interactive-only` was a good way to
"advertise" the functionality.


=== Stefan