Re: Idempotency of add-hook wrt lambda expressions

[David Reitter]

On 4 Mar 2009, at 09:18, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> As a general rule, you should not put a lambda but a function name
> (i.e. a symbol) instead, to avoid all those problems (and be able to
> replace the function with a newer version of it).  But occasionally
> a lambda is really exactly what you want, of course.


People haven't adopted this, and this is pretty annoying.

A similar case are commands bound to menu items (or any other keys): C- 
h k does not bring up something useful for keys that are just bound to  
a lambda term.

As for hooks, is a lambda expression ever suitable to be added to a  
hook?
Would it make sense to change add-hook such that only true function  
names are allowed?