> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email] >
> > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
> > Why not?
> Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
I see no reason for such a stringent consistency.
> Instead we say, in the doc for each such function, that it runs the
We don't say that for every hook, only for some, and mostly for hooks
that are called only from a single function.
> (Similarly, we don't list, in the doc for some function, all of the
> functions that might call it.)
Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense.
> Let me ask: Why should this doc list the functions that run the
Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update
the buffer list".
> And do you know of other places where we do that?
I don't think this question is relevant. We need to consider each
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
We could add a facility to find all the callers of a function.