From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Need help finding a past discussion Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:22:55 +0200 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <86mtk9s274.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29635"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 06 09:27:52 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n5O7i-0007Wc-O2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 09:27:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42294 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5O7h-0001KQ-6y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 03:27:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33684) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5O5s-0007o9-H6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 03:25:56 -0500 Original-Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]:58699) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5O5p-00033k-NN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 03:25:56 -0500 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C51B6FF804; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 08:25:08 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 05 Jan 2022 19:28:20 -0500") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.199; envelope-from=juri@linkov.net; helo=relay9-d.mail.gandi.net X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:284294 Archived-At: > A year or two ago, I remember a discussion here about something like > a hook where we wanted to make an incompatible change which required > somehow distinguishing those functions that expected the old behavior > from those that expected the new one. > > Maybe the change was about making the hook function return another > function, so they could be called in two steps and passed arguments at > two separate times. > > I vaguely also remember that we mentioned relying on symbol properties > (when the function was represented as a symbol) to distinguish the kind > of function at hand. > > Does that ring a bell for someone? Sounds like bug#46374 and save-some-buffers-function.