Re: hooks, again

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> FWIW, I think you feel this need because you do
> things like
>
>    (setq foo-hook '(a b c))
>
> whereas I do
>
>    (defun sm-foo-hook () (a) (b) (c))
>    (add-hook 'foo-hook 'sm-foo-hook)
>
> So I get the same property as you do (i.e.
> re-evaluating the code will properly change the
> behavior).

OK, I'm convinced! The package and update arguments
make sense, and with this it gives the visibility and
degree of control for complicated hooks that I speak
of (where "complicated" = one or two or three
functions in a particular order that have argument
data).

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573