[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25581: 25.1; Incorrect statement in (elisp) `Hooks'
From: |
Lars Ingebrigtsen |
Subject: |
bug#25581: 25.1; Incorrect statement in (elisp) `Hooks' |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:58:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> If the variable’s name ends in ‘-function’, then its value is just a
>>> single function, not a list of functions. ‘add-hook’ cannot be used to
>>> modify such a _single function hook_, and you have to use ‘add-function’
>>> instead (*note Advising Functions::).
>>>
>>> You CAN use `add-hook' to modify such a single-function hook.
>>> Nothing prevents you from doing so. And nothing even suggests
>>> that you should not. And you have always been able to do so.
>
> I'm not sure the above makes sense. Doesn't it usually work like:
>
> (setq foo-function 'message)
> (add-hook 'foo-function 'error) ; should work?
> (funcall foo-function) ; => Lisp error: (invalid-function (error message))
run-hooks is very permissive -- you can set the value of a -hooks
variable to a single function, and it'll still work:
(setq my-hook (lambda () (message "foo")))
(run-hooks 'my-hook)
So I think Drew is assuming that this -function variable would be run by
run-hook, and then things would still indeed work.
> It sort of makes sense when read next to the paragraph before, doesn't
> it? There the concept "abnormal hook" is defined with an explanation of
> variables ending in '-functions', and the paragraph about variables
> ending in '-function' is written mostly in contrast to that.
>
> I think the confusing thing here is that there are two ways to modify
> these single function hooks: setq and add-function.
But -functions variables are abnormal hooks. -function variables aren't
hooks at all.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no