Re: require-hard-newlines to use newline

[Richard Stallman]

    > If we agree that those hooks are the proper approach, and you can
    > write the proper doc for them, this is a trivial change, so I don't
    > see why we have to wait.

    Okay then. How about this patch?

It only does a part of the job.  It handles kill, but not registers,
etc.  I think it is implemented at the wrong level.

Stefan wrote:

    I think it's usually important to keep the property that killing doesn't
    modify the buffer's text (when used in copy-as-kill), so rather than having
    before-kill-functions modify the buffer's text just before it's put in the
    kill-ring, it would be more convenient to make it return the string,
    i.e. use it as a replacement for buffer-substring.

That is true, too.

    Another possibility is not to use a hook at all, e.g.:

    (defvar kill-filters nil
      "List of functions for converting a string before it is killed.
    Each function should accept a single argument, a string, and
    return a string.

That is more the right idea, for the part that reads from
the buffer.  But it is not correct to associate this with
killing.  Think of it as a variant of buffer-substring.

    But that makes it difficult to process the string in a way that depends on
    its context.

Maybe so, but is it necessary to do that?