Re: autoload for eww-suggest-uris

[Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net>]

>>>>> Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> "SM" == Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

[…]

 >> ;;; ~/.emacs (add-hook 'eww-suggest-uris 'some-new-function)
 >> ; → (some-new-function)

 >> Expected: that some-new-function /and/ all the default ones.

 >> An alternative would be to use add-hook in 'eww itself, but that in
 >> turn interferes with (setq eww-suggest-uris '(the-only-one)).

 > According to Stefan it is a bug to define a hook with a non-nil
 > initial value (see
 > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg01271.html),

	[AKA news:jwvd250fej3.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org.]

 > so using the `add-hook' in eww itself is the correct way.

	How do we prevent it from interfering with an explicit ‘setq’
	then?

 SM> Basically, given that "unbound == nil", what is a bug is to defvar
 SM> a hook with a non-nil default value, unless that hook is predefined
 SM> (i. e. is never unbound).

	How exactly does this affect the case when autoloads /are/
	properly set up (as, I argue, they should be, assuming a proper
	Emacs installation)?

 > In fact, it seems that 25.1 will issue a compiler warning when a hook
 > variable is given a non-nil initial value.

	Rest assured I’ll promptly ignore it whenever working on my own
	code.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  http://boycottsystemd.org/  … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A