Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:00:40 -0400
> 
> > 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?

> > I'm confident that with enough review, the core code could be changed
> > to make b-c-f and a-c-f symmetric without causing weird
> > bugs elsewhere.
> 
> Sure.  But I see more benefits in changing the few places that
> mistakenly rely on this pairing.

Agreed.