Re: Multiple next-error sources

[Dmitry Gutov]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

>> > (i) the danger (near certainty) that somebody is going to use `setq'
>> > rather than `add-function' to configure it;
>
>> The same critique applies to regular hooks, doesn't it?
>
> :-)  So it does!  What I was confused about is foo-function.  I think
> this is going to be a defun in the future, whereas up to now it's always
> been a defvar.

Will it? In that case, it probably should be named differently, like
foo-default (next-error-default, in the current example).

As long as there is a foo-function custom var, the critique applies.