Subject: bug#13370: 24.3.50; doc string of `call-interactively'

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 05:16:23 -0800

"Drew Adams" <[email-masked]> writes:

> The doc string would be clearer if the first parameter were called
> COMMAND and not FUNCTION (as is the case in the Elisp manual, for
> instance).  The fact that keyboard macros are excluded can also be
> added, to clarify further what the argument must be.

I think the usage of FUNCTION in the doc string is probably helpful,
since it then describes everything about the `interactive' spec.
Closing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/