From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add `advice-remove-all` Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 09:47:16 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87y3ugwvx1.fsf@jane> <87wp9zx1sk.fsf@jane> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1493732926 13392 195.159.176.226 (2 May 2017 13:48:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:48:46 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 02 15:48:41 2017 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 1d5YAT-0003Nr-0m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 15:48:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58965 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5YAY-0001oq-Pd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 09:48:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34130) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Y9P-0001km-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 09:47:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Y9K-0004WD-Dv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 09:47:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=51205 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Y9K-0004Va-7z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 09:47:30 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Y99-0001nR-Fy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 15:47:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 9 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:5r3yg39oWneh1Ss+9Ow7G44gMBU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:214517 Archived-At: > Well, it seems to me it is: showing the value of such a hook is > less-than-optimal and removing the lambda from it _might_ be tricky. Yes, it has downsides, but they don't always matter: I also recommend using a function symbol rather than a closure, but that doesn't mean using a closure is necessarily foolish. Stefan