From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
Cc: 32629@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:18:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83pnxlo2ph.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a906fe5b-ac26-4fe8-ad89-fe476c5b707a@default> (message from Drew Adams on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT))
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 32629@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
I see no reason for such a stringent consistency.
> Instead we say, in the doc for each such function, that it runs the
> hook.
We don't say that for every hook, only for some, and mostly for hooks
that are called only from a single function.
> (Similarly, we don't list, in the doc for some function, all of the
> functions that might call it.)
Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense.
> Let me ask: Why should this doc list the functions that run the
> hook?
Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update
the buffer list".
> And do you know of other places where we do that?
I don't think this question is relevant. We need to consider each
case separately.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-10 14:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <<a3bf93ca-f6a1-4b72-9b2e-794993f34d05@default>
[not found] ` <<83y3c9o59k.fsf@gnu.org>
2018-09-10 13:51 ` bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string Drew Adams
2018-09-10 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2018-09-11 4:22 ` Richard Stallman
[not found] <<<a3bf93ca-f6a1-4b72-9b2e-794993f34d05@default>
[not found] ` <<<83y3c9o59k.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <<a906fe5b-ac26-4fe8-ad89-fe476c5b707a@default>
[not found] ` <<83pnxlo2ph.fsf@gnu.org>
2018-09-10 15:00 ` Drew Adams
2018-09-03 20:34 Drew Adams
2018-09-04 7:52 ` martin rudalics
2018-09-10 13:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-03 1:45 ` Stefan Kangas
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=83pnxlo2ph.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=32629@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=drew.adams@oracle.com \
/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).