From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:35:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20160809183542.GE4893@acm.fritz.box> References: <83mvkni7xf.fsf@gnu.org> <20160808165449.GB7208@acm.fritz.box> <83d1lji3ih.fsf@gnu.org> <20160808184223.GC7208@acm.fritz.box> <838tw7hyk2.fsf@gnu.org> <20160808195459.GD7208@acm.fritz.box> <83tweugeu9.fsf@gnu.org> <20160809163814.GD4893@acm.fritz.box> <83oa51hp1s.fsf@gnu.org> <83lh05hktk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1470767903 26148 195.159.176.226 (9 Aug 2016 18:38:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:38:23 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, rcopley@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 09 20:38:19 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBut-0006h3-I2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:38:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37426 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBuo-0000DT-Jz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:38:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57733) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBtH-00082H-25 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:37:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBsv-0004mZ-CE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:36:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:18709) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXBsv-0004mB-0k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:36:17 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 55676 invoked by uid 3782); 9 Aug 2016 18:36:16 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FC46C02.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.196.108.2]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:36:13 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 15752 invoked by uid 1000); 9 Aug 2016 18:35:42 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83lh05hktk.fsf@gnu.org> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206521 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:13:43PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:42:23 +0300 > > From: Eli Zaretskii > > Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, rcopley@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > However there's still the inaccuracy in the Elisp documentation for > > > before-change-functions. In particular there's the bit in "Change Hooks" > > > that says: > > > This variable holds a list of functions to call before _ANY_ buffer > > > modification. > > > , which is grossly misleading, at best. > > > Should I open another bug report for this, or are you just going to be > > > fixing it anyway (or giving me the info so that I can fix it)? > > I will fix it. > Done (on the emacs-25 branch). You've changed "any" to "most", which although technically not incorrect, is lacking in usefulness. In particular, it gives a user of before-change-functions no way to predict which modifications will call it and which ones won't. I think "most" is a bit misleading - it suggests a proportion of, perhaps, 60% - 90%, whereas I think the figure in real usage is well over 99%. "Almost all", I think, would be a better description than "most", but still inadequate. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).