Re: find-file-hook as illustration of Custom problems

[Lennart Borgman]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Stallman" <address@hidden>

> For the case of hooks, we could imagine changing cus-edit.el so that
> edits made using Custom only affect elements that were installed using
> Custom.  Any other elements could be invisible and untouchable; or
> they might be displayed in a separate way as "program-added hooks" and
> untouchable through the usual Custom features.  In effect, this means
> treating a single list as if it were the combination of too list
> values, one to be edited through Custom and one to be updated
> by programs.
>
> I don't know how hard this would be.

Would not this require changes to the run hook functions too? In that case
it might be more simple to add a macro (or function) used for creating
hooks, maybe "define-hook" that added the normal hook and a second hook used
by Custom. (This would of course also require changes to the run hook
functions.)

This is somewhat in the spirit of define-minor-mode. It would make it rather
easy to change all the 400 hooks now defined by defcustom. I assume there
would not be big changes necessary to the run hooks functions. It is just to
run the hooks in the second list too. (However maybe the marriage between
Custom and the C code should feel uncomfortable.)