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: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:50:13 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83inv9hkjd.fsf@gnu.org> <83h9ashfgx.fsf@gnu.org> <831t1wharr.fsf@gnu.org> <20160810161821.GB3413@acm.fritz.box> <83wpjofttf.fsf@gnu.org> <20160810185735.GD3413@acm.fritz.box> <20160811112951.GA2154@acm.fritz.box> <7e1478b6-cf00-fcbf-8c24-43bdaa57e2b6@dancol.org> <415d1cca-f32c-624e-a4be-9aadcf8a0f17@dancol.org> <83h9a3bpbt.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472485699 31892 195.159.176.226 (29 Aug 2016 15:48:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:48:19 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 29 17:48:15 2016 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 1beOnA-0007VV-Jt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:48:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44178 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beOn8-0001Wt-75 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:48:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42146) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beOmL-0001Va-7T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:47:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beOmG-0005IN-Nl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:47:15 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:51914) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beOmG-0005IJ-Hv; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:47:12 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id u7TFlnAF021272; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:47:50 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 14A2B66274; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:50:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83h9a3bpbt.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:51:50 +0300") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5781=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <5781> : inlines <5148> : streams <1691982> : uri <2277386> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 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:206878 Archived-At: >> > I was under the impression that Eli's concern was with the effect of >> > the b-c-f change itself, not with bugs that might be introduced by >> > the change. >> I can't speak for Eli, but at least that's not my worry. > I actually don't understand the difference: how is "the effect of the > change itself" different from "bugs that might be introduced" by it. > Sounds like the latter is a subset of the former? The request is to change the way b-c-f and a-c-f are run such that they're always exactly paired. Any patch which implements such a change could have any number of other impacts. So we can divide the impacts of such a patch into 2 parts: - the part which changes b-c-f and a-c-f to be exactly paired. - the rest. I think the first part should be 100% safe, because any code which works correctly with the current looser behavior of b/a-c-f should also work correctly with the tighter behavior. Of course, there might be code out there which relies on the details of the current behavior b/a-c-f, but I'm not worried about that at all. "The rest" is the more likely source of worry. Stefan