Re: Inconsistency in font-lock

[martin rudalics]

> Whether the function has it optional or not is not the issue.  The issue is
> that the code calls it with 3 arguments, so we should just say so rather
> than impose that the third be optional.

OK with me.

> Check the docstring of other foo-function(s) variables and you'll see that's
> how we normally document them:
>
>    after-change-functions is a variable defined in `C source code'.
>    Its value is nil
>    
>    
>    Documentation:
>    List of functions to call after each text change.
>    Three arguments are passed to each function: the positions of
>    the beginning and end of the range of changed text,
>    and the length in bytes of the pre-change text replaced by that range.
>    ...
>
> The after-change-functions can of course decide to leave the 3rd argument
> as optional.

Sure.  Just loudly / verbose is quite hysterical nowadays.