From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: unload-feature questions and thoughts Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:07:14 +0200 Message-ID: References: <86r6t5qdbo.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <861wl5q7al.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <54853.128.165.123.18.1192027947.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <55463.128.165.123.18.1192035787.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1192036085 2661 80.91.229.12 (10 Oct 2007 17:08:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel To: herring@lanl.gov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 10 19:08:04 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iff1r-0002A5-C8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:07:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iff1l-0008Jl-BD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:07:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iff1i-0008J7-4S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:07:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iff1g-0008HL-Bm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:07:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iff1f-0008H5-Ub for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:07:16 -0400 Original-Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.230]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iff1f-0002kQ-7F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:07:15 -0400 Original-Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 50so160203wra for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=atmMuMOHBdCe6tO31jGFYhG2LFjbK3ydsEaxw+6UKTg=; b=GzD3D9Ac4R8aVPkD/rzI4jnsBNBkoG67aD0Qas772LwQMyf1ei01OWD+jL4qlj2m7+5Ps+DCsrqVVlgKIr6sFAk8I1aLEpf5Rj+ewD+skJT00Gm9OYG12V0JeZvMFWfur4dtV06DdY6z4lHNVFZ1MKoMaNCpYXftJe4qei6hPMQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fl232NyYzKMofqAfuiZRKBKxv/hWq8QPO4OdjMxqXHasBLk8LlW5pR3sOCzW1FJOJy16dUVN1ni7Ts/lMbPCJzP0ZFHa2Sjw3HGMdawfxT8vuQr+fqlb+dvt8aSxiymdEttWJhLn5cTIdiWihmibtZ7zGsNZZ8W/3cF8nJx26yQ= Original-Received: by 10.90.81.14 with SMTP id e14mr1442895agb.1192036034662; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.103.8 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55463.128.165.123.18.1192035787.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> Content-Disposition: inline X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:80524 Archived-At: On 10/10/07, Davis Herring wrote: > Perhaps, instead of > defining a return value for the hook, we should always do the heuristics > and have the FEATURE-unload-hook do only extra things, because I can't see > how the heuristics would do too much. Moreover, the hook may modify > `unload-hook-features-list', even to nil, if it really needs to override > the heuristics. Yes, that's what I've been proposing. It should have to be a new hook for compatibility, I think. > Of course, a new doc string that describes the final behavior should be > written, but there's no point in writing two new ones. (The doc should > probably list what the function does more explicitly, so that package > authors can see whether they need to write a hook.) Agreed. Juanma