Re: [APPROVE COMMIT] Re: [patch] obsolete.el: new alias interactive-form for function-interactive

drv> I think we should standardize on what we think is the drv> better terminology. In that particular case, I find theirs drv> better :-) Agreed. However, my definition of "better" is based on "what will most of the library maintainers be happier to use?" In this case, if we had "interactive-form" and they "function-interactive", I'd go with "interactive-form", definitely. But if it's just a small difference (say, "interactive-specification", which is more precise and thus better than "interactive-form"), I'd say go with GNU's terminology, and obsolete ours, because that causes less annoyance for people porting for GNU to XEmacs. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Don't ask how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.