From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it valid to call isearch-filter-predicate outside isearch? Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 08:35:30 +0000 Message-ID: <87wn0lkkod.fsf@localhost> References: <875y8nks9t.fsf@localhost> <87fs7c10cq.fsf@web.de> <87v8g79zoe.fsf@localhost> <87sfbasr8m.fsf@web.de> <87y1l244hz.fsf@localhost> <87o7lxpip9.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30189"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 03 10:31:45 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1q5Mfp-0007gg-BY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 10:31:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q5MfD-0006kK-1h; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 04:31:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q5Mf9-0006jl-9F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 04:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q5Mf7-0004TW-Ip for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 04:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5304240101 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:30:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1685781059; bh=7an5p5qZbA1tB6bHhyOPZLpXlu2aOnumbHf0ci0+DAg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=YIR1MiUtk77RRb/ya0fTjs7MKFucbxawdz/iY1jR/a0UBdrYgYz90DfwajlTj19jP GLZ44PpXyk/jwFNa+opXaqDDrLlyCjX1v62HnCezFK9pGgXv/fKO5YSeh+zgnPh8w6 NjqPZ3qJU27SqCL19RDMlIFP/Y8PTVI/4QD5ojANDTmqQR6+oK0t2lCB0Q528mvkos FZuSMjUcmKETGM6xO4VRSpl1VC1HRR8ObhAh7qRZmhXALB04x7H8wBrS7QbkCkq24P 0MZPq7gjTQkOUwzbkQn99NFK0Zt3X+MUegYUc+fwQxJhKj1E3AHtQPtrl46YiNFFF2 Z/sJf82oknCWw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QYCkV3zskz6txM; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:30:58 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87o7lxpip9.fsf@web.de> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:306572 Archived-At: Michael Heerdegen writes: >> 2. It feels against the interface. If advising this predicate is >> expected, why not convert it into an abnormal hook? > > It's more flexible and expressive, as Drew already mentioned. For > example, how the members of a hook are logically combined (`and'ed, > `or'ed) is fixed in a hook, but not when using advising. Interesting. >From Elisp Tips in the manual, I always felt that using advices is always frowned upon. And you are suggesting that they are the better way to go in these situations. I am wondering if this thing with modifying predicates should be documented somewhere and recommended approach. > I also wonder about the `kill-variable' calls: what if the user or a > third-party mode want to have own buffer-local settings for these? We then erase > them when killing the local variables. With using an advice on these > the worst thing that could happen is that we leave a buffer local > variable with the same binding as the global one, where we started with > no buffer local binding. May you please elaborate? I am not sure what `kill-variable' calls you are referring to here. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at