Re: other-buffer advice on kill-buffer

[Jérémy Compostella]

David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:

> 
> Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >     That's not correct.  You can advise a primitive function, but the
> >     advice will only affect calls to that function made from Lisp, not
> >     calls from other primitives.
> >
> > It may be that in a few special cases
> > we should modify calls within C code to some primitive functions
> > so that they call the Lisp symbol.
> > That way, it would work to advise those functions.
> >
> > To do this for all the primitive functions would be impossible, I
> > think, and certainly not worth the pain.  But there might be a few
> > functions for which this would be particularly useful, and it might be
> > worth doing this for them.
> 
> If it is worth making it advisable, it is worth giving it a hook.
> 
> The problem is that advice is intended for adding functionality that has
> not been imagined previously.  So it is hard to think of a case where
> one would explicitly make a function advisable.
I do not understand why all these primitives functions do not call the Lisp
symbol instead of the C one. What is the reason ? Performance ? Constraints ?

It looks inconsistent that way from my point of view but I suppose there is a
good reason.

Thanks