Re: table.el

[Tak Ota]

Mon, 03 Dec 2001 01:30:29 -0500: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> 
wrote:

> > BTW, RMS said the hook is better be hooks in this case.  Also the
> 
> Actually no, he said he preferred `wrappers' to `wrapper'.
> I think `with-wrapper-hooks' would be definitely wrong since the
> construct only takes a single hook.
> 
> > emacs lisp manual says when the hook takes arguments they are called
> > hooks instead of hook.
> 
> I strongly doubt it.  Hooks should never be called `foo-hooks'.
> It's either `foo-hook' for a plain hook and `foo-functions' for
> the case where arguments will be passed.
> 
> Also the convention for the naming of hooks is independent from the
> convention for the naming of functions operating on hooks.
> When the function can run several hooks, it's called `run-hooks'
> (for example (run-hooks 'text-mode-hook 'message-mode-hook)) and
> when it can only run a single hook, it's called `run-hook' as
> in (run-hook-with-args 'foo-functions arg1 arg2).

Maybe I got wrong impression from

(Info-find-node "elisp" "Standard Hooks")

-Tak