Re: [PATCH v3] RFC: eldoc-documentation-functions hook

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> Applied with some wording changes as 5811404
>> I don't think we have reached any consensus.
> The problem is not just that it introduces a gratuitous incompatiblity,
> but that it's a regression since you can't use things like :around nor
> choose precedence (as in add-function's `depth') with add-hook.

I know of 3 motivations to replace foo-function with foo-functions:

- habit and consistency: Emacs has used add-hook for many many years, so
  having to start using add-function is inconvenient.  That is true and
  I don't have a good argument against this, except that foo-function
  also have existed for many years so the fact that you can't use
  add-hook on them is not really new.  What is new is that you can use
  add-function on them.

- C-h v foo-function RET gives a value that's unreadable.   That is true
  and we should improve it.  I don't think there's anything really hard
  about doing so, so it's a transient motivation and it'd be better to
  fix `C-h v' than to circumvent the problem by using foo-functions.

- (add-function :before (local 'foo-function) #'toto) is more verbose
  than (add-hook 'foo-functions #'toto nil t).  That's true.  But the
  difference is not very large.  We could try and reduce it, but I'm not
  sure it's worth the trouble, especially since the fact that you can
  choose between (say) :before and :around is one of the main benefits of
  foo-function over foo-functions.


-- Stefan