From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: find-file-hook as illustration of Custom problems Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:01:52 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200502040036.j140atb03430@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <009d01c50bbb$9aa2fd50$0200a8c0@sedrcw11488> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1107724630 6692 80.91.229.2 (6 Feb 2005 21:17:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 21:17:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: teirllm@dms.auburn.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 06 22:17:09 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CxtmE-0003aX-CU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:17:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Cxu0E-0006HJ-6H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:31:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CxtxJ-0005S9-OF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:28:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CxtxB-0005N3-DE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:28:27 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Cxtx9-0005Jc-PG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:28:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cxtan-0002mJ-DQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:05:17 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CxtXU-0001vL-0M; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:01:52 -0500 Original-To: "Lennart Borgman" In-reply-to: <009d01c50bbb$9aa2fd50$0200a8c0@sedrcw11488> (lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:32970 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:32970 > For the case of hooks, we could imagine changing cus-edit.el so that > edits made using Custom only affect elements that were installed using > Custom. Any other elements could be invisible and untouchable; or > they might be displayed in a separate way as "program-added hooks" and > untouchable through the usual Custom features. In effect, this means > treating a single list as if it were the combination of too list > values, one to be edited through Custom and one to be updated > by programs. > > I don't know how hard this would be. Would not this require changes to the run hook functions too? My proposal does not involve any changes to run-hooks. I am talking about a change entirely within cus-edit.el. In that case it might be more simple to add a macro (or function) used for creating hooks, maybe "define-hook" that added the normal hook and a second hook used by Custom. (This would of course also require changes to the run hook functions.) It should not be necessary to change all the definitions of hooks. It would be much better to avoid that. So let's look only at solutions that do not require changing all the definitions of hooks.