[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks |
Date: |
Wed, 01 May 2019 16:29:00 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> Occasionally it's important to control the relative ordering of
>> functions on hooks. It's usually a bad idea, but sometimes alternatives
>> are worse.
> Could you please give a couple of examples?
The patch includes the post-self-insert-hook example, I already mentioned
the after-change-functions example (where cc-mode wants his hook to
come before font-lock's), and I could add the case of
syntax-propertize's before-change-functions which needs to "come last".
> I agree that it's usually a bad idea, so maybe we should resist the
> temptation.
So far people haven't resisted the temptation, but have instead worked
around the lack of direct support for it, either by ad-hoc ways to
detect mis-ordering and re-set the ordering accordingly, or by hoping
for the best.
> If the worse comes to worst, a Lisp program could concoct
> the entire hook list in any order it sees fit, right?
I don't understand what you mean here.
>> +The place where the function is added depends on the DEPTH
>> +parameter. DEPTH defaults to 0.
>
> So from now on, omitting DEPTH will not necessarily put the function
> at the beginning of the hook list?
Indeed. Same for `t` not always going to the very end.
> That's backward-incompatible, no?
Sure.
> In any case, this default is insufficiently tested by the tests
> you propose.
What other tests do you suggest?
> So using 100 more than once makes the last one "win"?
Yes. This is so that when using `t` more than once, the last one wins,
just as it used to.
>> +For backward compatibility reasons, a symbol other than nil is
>> +interpreted as a DEPTH of 90.
> This is not explicitly tested by the test.
I can a test to try and check that `90` corresponds to `t`, if you want,
although this property is trivially verified by looking at the code.
[ I tend to prefer tests that try and catch tricky interactions rather
than straightforward bases cases. E.g. the tests I included are the
ones that failed during development ;-) ]
Stefan
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/05/01
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks,
Stefan Monnier <=
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/08
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/05/11
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/11
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/05/11
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/13
- bug#35508: 27.0.50; Fine-ordering of functions on hooks, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/29