From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/emacs-24 r108143: run-hooks-with-args-* do fixes (bug#12393) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:27:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347971277 18321 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2012 12:27:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 18 14:28:00 2012 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 1TDwuC-0003Nv-Ij for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:27:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58648 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDwu4-0008Pw-9Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:27:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55219) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDwtx-0008OZ-9s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:27:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDwtn-0006CG-Rr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:27:41 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:48755) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDwtn-0006CA-NX; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:27:31 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAG6Zu09Ld+qU/2dsb2JhbABEtBGBCIIVAQEEAVYjEAsOJhIUGA0kiBwFugmQRAOjM4FYgwU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="198588129" Original-Received: from 75-119-234-148.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([75.119.234.148]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 18 Sep 2012 08:27:31 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id CB75859041; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:27:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Glenn Morris's message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:49:13 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.182 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:153378 Archived-At: >> That seems redundant, since if the hook is nil, all the functions on the >> hook return nil. > No harm in being explicit though? No, no harm (other than being a bit verbose). >>> -the given arguments and its return value is returned. >>> +the given arguments. Then we return nil if the function returns nil, >>> +and t if it returns non-nil. >> Let's not force ourselves to return t. IOW `non-nil' would be better. > I thought about that, but wanted to make it clear that we do not return > the same non-nil value as the function. Saying it returns `non-nil' is already very different from saying it returns that function's value. > (Althought that is how it behaved until 24.1, when it was changed with > no annoucement and no doc update.) And it might change again in the future, that's why I don't want to be specific when there's no need to be. Stefan