Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]

[Daniel Colascione]

On August 30, 2016 11:47:49 AM PDT, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> wrote:
>Hello, Daniel.
>
>On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:32:42AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>
>
>> On August 30, 2016 11:30:09 AM PDT, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
>wrote:
>
>[ .... ]
>
>> >> Programs need to be written for the world we inhabit, not the one 
>> >> we want. Relying on behavior that's usually but not always the
>case
>> >> is antithetical to software robustness.
>
>We build error handling into software.  Coping with non-matching b-c-f
>and a-c-f calls is simply error handling.
>
>> >Coming back to the concrete, your proposed way of expressing things
>> >would prevent future hackers from using b-c-f and a-c-f together the
>> >way that we do.  Is that what you want?
>
>> It doesn't prevent them per second: it just forces them to be more
>careful.
>
>Your wording would prevent such use, so clearly does it express that
>b-c-f and a-c-f frequently don't match.
>
>> I'd prefer that these hooks work the way we both want, but if that's
>> not the case, I'd rather not mislead developers. It's not the
>> documentation that prevents this use, but the Emacs core
>
>CC Mode works.  The Emacs core does not prevent it working.  Nor does
>it
>prevent your or Phillip's software from working.
>
>You evaded the question, so I'll put it to you again: do you want to
>prevent future hackers from  using b-c-f and a-c-f together the way we
>do?

Yes, because the approach we use today is broken and there's little hope in 
fixing it. The language in the documentation doesn't change what Emacs does. I 
don't understand what's so hard to see. You want to lead developers into 
writing code against an Emacs that doesn't exist