[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hooks, again
From: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: hooks, again |
Date: |
Sun, 10 May 2015 19:52:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> FWIW, I think you feel this need because you do
> things like
>
> (setq foo-hook '(a b c))
>
> whereas I do
>
> (defun sm-foo-hook () (a) (b) (c))
> (add-hook 'foo-hook 'sm-foo-hook)
>
> So I get the same property as you do (i.e.
> re-evaluating the code will properly change the
> behavior).
OK, I'm convinced! The package and update arguments
make sense, and with this it gives the visibility and
degree of control for complicated hooks that I speak
of (where "complicated" = one or two or three
functions in a particular order that have argument
data).
--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
- hooks, again (was: Re: --batch on many files without reloading config), (continued)
- hooks, again (was: Re: --batch on many files without reloading config), Emanuel Berg, 2015/05/05
- Re: hooks, again, Stefan Monnier, 2015/05/05
- Message not available
- Re: hooks, again, Emanuel Berg, 2015/05/05
- Re: hooks, again, Stefan Monnier, 2015/05/05
- Message not available
- Re: hooks, again, Emanuel Berg, 2015/05/05
- Re: hooks, again, Stefan Monnier, 2015/05/06
- Re: hooks, again, Emanuel Berg, 2015/05/06
- Re: hooks, again, Stefan Monnier, 2015/05/06
- Message not available
- Re: hooks, again, Emanuel Berg, 2015/05/06
- Re: hooks, again, Stefan Monnier, 2015/05/06
- Message not available
- Re: hooks, again,
Emanuel Berg <=