From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 19e09cf: Ensure redisplay after evaluation Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:24:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20151106192313.30794.29154@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <83oaf4o4gs.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447021493 11780 80.91.229.3 (8 Nov 2015 22:24:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 22:24:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 08 23:24:44 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvYOB-00073j-8f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 23:24:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49005 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvYOA-00037G-Nw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:24:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50388) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvYNy-000379-Ll for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:24:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvYNx-00075g-R2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:24:30 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:21333) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvYNu-00074X-3L; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:24:26 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A+FgA731xV/6sLr7hcgxCEAoVVwwsEAgKBPD0QAQEBAQEBAYEKQQWDXQEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIg3CM8jAQEBBwEBAQEeizqFBQeELQWMMKcPgUUjgWaCMCCCeAEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0A+FgA731xV/6sLr7hcgxCEAoVVwwsEAgKBPD0QAQEBAQEBAYEKQQWDXQEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIg3CM8jAQEBBwEBAQEeizqFBQeELQWMMKcPgUUjgWaCMCCCeAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,465,1427774400"; d="scan'208";a="177553529" Original-Received: from 184-175-11-171.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([184.175.11.171]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Nov 2015 17:24:24 -0500 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 59441AE250; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 17:24:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83oaf4o4gs.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 08 Nov 2015 18:12:19 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:193662 Archived-At: > AFAICT, these objections were never addressed in the discussions. That's just a disagreement. I don't think that can be addressed. I fully agree with Richard that it's a facility with which you can shoot yourself in the foot in many different ways, but I don't find it to be a reason to disallow it. After all, this same objection can be raised against lots of other "hooks" we have. To me it just means that it's a feature that needs to be used with care, not that it's a feature we should reject. > And we _are_ talking about using such a facility for purposes other > than debugging, albeit internal purposes. That's exactly why I think this feature should be generic (and hence dangerous): there are several different potential valid applications, and the reason why it's safe/acceptable can completely vary from one use to another (e.g. in the debugging case you'll probably want to allow the hook to make random changes, whereas in general this would be completely unacceptable. In the present case, the hook would be perfectly acceptable because its effect is "unnoticeable" since all it does is set a flag somewhere). Stefan