From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Multiple next-error sources Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 19:51:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20141107195155.GD2865@acm.acm> References: <20141106180815.207bf7ad@forcix> <20141107104914.17f04967@forcix> <20141107165551.GA2865@acm.acm> <20141107182111.GC2865@acm.acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1415389984 23103 80.91.229.3 (7 Nov 2014 19:53:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 19:53:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 07 20:52:57 2014 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 1Xmpaa-00010b-1j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:52:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33691 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmpaZ-0001RO-L5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:52:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmpaQ-0001Qm-Fw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:52:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmpaG-0002uT-4y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:52:46 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:27875 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmpaF-0002tD-LY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:52:36 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 20976 invoked by uid 3782); 7 Nov 2014 19:52:33 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD951BADF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.81.186.223]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:52:32 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 3643 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Nov 2014 19:51:55 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 8.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 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:176556 Archived-At: Hello, Stefan. On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:48:25PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Because "(add-hook 'next-error-functions #'my-function)" is shorter than > > the `add-function' variant, > The text I wrote and you quoted already said that it was shorter but not > enough to warrant an additional variable. So you think saving 16 > characters is worth an additional hook? It saves one parameter, that `:before-until', which is difficult to understand. > None of those reasons seem to apply the question of whether it's worth > adding a next-error-functions hook (remember: next-error-function exists > already, since long before add-function was born). > > Let me repeat my question: in what respect is the `add-function' way of > > doing things superior to the conventional hook mechanism? If the answer > > is "in no respect", then I would suggest that the project continue to > > use hooks in preference to `add-function' functions. > At this point I feel like you're confusing me with an idiot. Sorry, I don't mean to give that impression. Anyhow, you've answered my question in a post to Daniel. It's all about increased flexibility. So, thanks! > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).