From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Lisp primitives and their calling of the change hooks Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:15:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20180109195357.GA3869@ACM> <20180110184521.GB6175@ACM> <20180110194839.GC6175@ACM> <20180110210334.GD6175@ACM> <20180111173904.GA5453@ACM> <20180111194622.GB5453@ACM> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1515701714 17191 195.159.176.226 (11 Jan 2018 20:15:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 20:15:14 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 11 21:15:10 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eZjFa-0003QR-Kz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 21:14:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39588 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZjHZ-0002SO-4p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:17:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44319) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZjGT-0002Qg-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:15:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZjGP-0006yH-TS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:15:53 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:58129) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZjGP-0006xi-Nu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:15:49 -0500 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w0BKFldJ003002; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:15:48 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 93DD266326; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:15:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20180111194622.GB5453@ACM> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:46:22 +0000") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6198=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6198> : inlines <6306> : streams <1775777> : uri <2568235> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:221858 Archived-At: >> >> I'm very far from convinced about the "elaborate special handling". >> > Well, you agree that there're no advantages to having unbalanced change >> > hooks, >> No I don't. > You don't? How can you be surprised? For several years now you've been complaining about the lack of balance (which supposedly breaks cc-mode assumptions or something) while I have been pushing back arguing that it's not a bug (in itself: there are bugs, but the mere fact that it's not balanced is not a bug). > What, then, might those advantages be, Implementation flexibility, of course (which apparently Eli doesn't want to take advantage of very much). > and in what conditions would those advantages outweigh the known > disadvantages in allowing unbalanced change hooks? What known disadvantages? Stefan