From: Daniel Mendler <mail@daniel-mendler.de>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>,
"47992@debbugs.gnu.org" <47992@debbugs.gnu.org>
Cc: "monnier@iro.umontreal.ca" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
"jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no" <jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no>
Subject: bug#47992: [External] : bug#47992: 27; 28; Phase out use of `equal` in `add-hook`, `remove-hook`
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 23:34:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4a527e2e-710f-9c8d-8f89-00a97f93175d@daniel-mendler.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SA2PR10MB4474F1067410B93086415447F3449@SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
On 4/24/21 11:20 PM, Drew Adams wrote:
> Shouldn't your argument be that closure equality should
> _always_ be tested (testable) using just `eq'? Is this
> really about `add|remove-hook'? Why would they be
> special in this regard?
This could be discussed. But a change in equality would be much more
impactful.
There are reasons why one would want to allow structural equality
testing for closures. I don't see a problem with it if I opt-in
explicitly by using `equal`. It is still the wrong equality for
`add/remove-hook` which should be robust. And currently it is not.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-24 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-24 12:11 bug#47992: 27; 28; Phase out use of `equal` in `add-hook`, `remove-hook` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-24 20:12 ` bug#47992: [External] : " Drew Adams
2021-04-24 20:23 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-24 21:20 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-24 21:34 ` Daniel Mendler [this message]
2021-04-24 22:30 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-24 22:38 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-24 23:04 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-24 23:38 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-25 1:16 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 3:08 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-25 4:57 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 13:52 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-25 1:16 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 1:23 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 3:10 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-25 4:57 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 10:33 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-25 13:56 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-05-02 9:09 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-05-02 10:37 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-05-03 8:50 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-06 14:44 ` Olivier Certner
[not found] ` <877di6udfy.fsf@web.de>
2021-07-04 1:09 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-04 2:35 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-04 2:56 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-04 4:28 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-04 13:36 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-04 17:08 ` bug#47992: [External] : " Drew Adams
2021-07-04 22:45 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-05 12:39 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-06 1:48 ` Richard Stallman
2021-07-06 2:37 ` bug#47992: [External] : " Drew Adams
2021-07-06 3:21 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-07 23:57 ` Richard Stallman
2021-07-06 9:46 ` Arthur Miller
2021-07-07 23:57 ` Richard Stallman
2021-07-08 2:11 ` Arthur Miller
2021-07-04 23:15 ` Michael Heerdegen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4a527e2e-710f-9c8d-8f89-00a97f93175d@daniel-mendler.de \
--to=mail@daniel-mendler.de \
--cc=47992@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=drew.adams@oracle.com \
--cc=jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no \
--cc=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).