* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string [not found] ` <<83pnxlo2ph.fsf@gnu.org> @ 2018-09-10 15:00 ` Drew Adams 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Drew Adams @ 2018-09-10 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii, Drew Adams; +Cc: 32629 > > > > 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. No, there's no need for a stringent consistency. That's generally true. > Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense. > Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update > the buffer list". OK. Thanks for thinking about it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <<a3bf93ca-f6a1-4b72-9b2e-794993f34d05@default>]
[parent not found: <<83y3c9o59k.fsf@gnu.org>]
* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string [not found] ` <<83y3c9o59k.fsf@gnu.org> @ 2018-09-10 13:51 ` Drew Adams 2018-09-10 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Drew Adams @ 2018-09-10 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii, Drew Adams; +Cc: 32629 > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook. > > Why not? Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?). Instead we say, in the doc for each such function, that it runs the hook. (Similarly, we don't list, in the doc for some function, all of the functions that might call it.) The most that could be done would be to list the functions known, ahead of time, to run the hook. But even that is counterproductive, IMO. Let me ask: Why should this doc list the functions that run the hook? And do you know of other places where we do that? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string 2018-09-10 13:51 ` Drew Adams @ 2018-09-10 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2018-09-11 4:22 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2018-09-10 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 32629 > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string 2018-09-10 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2018-09-11 4:22 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2018-09-11 4:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 32629 [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?). We could add a facility to find all the callers of a function. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string
@ 2018-09-03 20:34 Drew Adams
2018-09-04 7:52 ` martin rudalics
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2018-09-03 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 32629
The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
In GNU Emacs 26.1 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
of 2018-05-30
Repository revision: 07f8f9bc5a51f5aa94eb099f3e15fbe0c20ea1ea
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.16299
Configured using:
`configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
--without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string 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 2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: martin rudalics @ 2018-09-04 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Drew Adams, 32629 > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook. If you feel strongly about this, please submit a new doc-string. Thanks, martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string 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 2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2018-09-10 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 32629 > Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 13:34:03 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook. Why not? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string 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 2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Stefan Kangas @ 2019-10-03 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 32629 tags 32629 + wontfix close 32629 thanks Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes: >> > > > 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. > > No, there's no need for a stringent consistency. > That's generally true. > >> Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense. >> Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update >> the buffer list". > > OK. Thanks for thinking about it. The conclusion here was that the doc string is fine as it is. Closing. Best regards, Stefan Kangas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-03 1:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[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 ` bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string Drew Adams
[not found] <<a3bf93ca-f6a1-4b72-9b2e-794993f34d05@default>
[not found] ` <<83y3c9o59k.fsf@gnu.org>
2018-09-10 13:51 ` Drew Adams
2018-09-10 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-09-11 4:22 ` Richard Stallman
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
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).