[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#32629: 26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:18:50 +0300 |
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 32629@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
I see no reason for such a stringent consistency.
> Instead we say, in the doc for each such function, that it runs the
> hook.
We don't say that for every hook, only for some, and mostly for hooks
that are called only from a single function.
> (Similarly, we don't list, in the doc for some function, all of the
> functions that might call it.)
Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense.
> Let me ask: Why should this doc list the functions that run the
> hook?
Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update
the buffer list".
> And do you know of other places where we do that?
I don't think this question is relevant. We need to consider each
case separately.