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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: address@hidden (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:20:21 +0100
> 
> Actually, for me, any individual change that removes inconsistency
> between the b-c-f and a-c-f locations is a positive thing. I already
> have a fall back plan, but the fewer times this is called, the more
> efficient my code gets.

Having read through the code for quite some time, I simply don't
believe this is possible.  You could fix one marginal use case (they
all are marginal), but by doing that break another.  There are too
many layers of patchwork.