From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: unload-feature questions and thoughts Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:20:23 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86r6t5qdbo.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <861wl5q7al.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <54853.128.165.123.18.1192027947.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <55463.128.165.123.18.1192035787.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <55585.128.165.123.18.1192038971.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1192080166 31120 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2007 05:22:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:22:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: herring@lanl.gov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 11 07:22:45 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IfqVQ-0000lX-Uy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:22:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfqVK-0001Bu-VF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:22:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfqUB-0008Ep-AZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:21:27 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfqU9-0008Cz-Q8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:21:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfqU9-0008Ct-Kj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:21:25 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IfqU9-0001Yk-C0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:21:25 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IfqT9-000533-Oa; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:20:23 -0400 In-reply-to: <55585.128.165.123.18.1192038971.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> (herring@lanl.gov) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:80583 Archived-At: So I think that the evidence is for the intuitively obvious statement that no one knows how to use the hook. I found no examples where the normal heuristics would break anything, although neither did I find any examples where the unload-hook actually broke things by suppressing the "normal heuristics". So I think treating it as a bug is probably the right thing to do for simplicity: just do the heuristics regardless, and let the rare hooks that really need to suppress them kill the variable bound for that purpose. Ok.