bug#47992: [External] : bug#47992: 27; 28; Phase out use of `equal` in `add-hook`, `remove-hook`

[Stefan Monnier]

> So instead of just advising users not to use lambda forms
> (which makes sense), you'd make it no longer work at all
> for interpreted lambda forms (except rare cases where
> they might actually be `eq' - e.g., same list structure)?

It would still work for lambda forms, just differently (arguably, in
a way that's more often right than the current way).

> Perhaps `equal' can be fixed to do something better with closures?

There's no magic: `equal` has to check the structural equality, so it
has to recurse through the whole structure, including all the
closed-over variables to which it refers.

> E.g., if the `eq' test in `equal' fails for a
> closure arg then return nil?  (I'm not proposing that.)

That's what using `eq` would do, so you seem to agree with
Daniel's proposal here.

> And Stefan says, there:
>
> "IOW I think the better fix is to change
> `minibuffer-with-setup-hook` to use an indirection
> via a symbol."

That was written in the context of a fix that needs to work *now*,
whereas changing `add/remove-hook` to use `eq` tests can at best be
a longer term goal.


        Stefan