> > Uh, no, I don't think so.
> > (interactive-p) == (called-interactively-p 'interactive)
> I do not follow you -- your words are very terse.
> Are you saying that people replaced calls to interactive-p with calls
> to called-interactively-p, rather than converting to use an optional
Yes, apparently so. You're correct that there are
now no occurrences of `interactive-p' in the source
code. But there are hundreds of occurrences of
what amounts to the same thing.
I've said it several times in this thread already,
which is why I didn't belabor it in my too-terse
reply: this is the _definition_ of `interactive-p'