From 211ee13fb5d973a11988b8425be90cac2c8f0104 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 08:57:27 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] * doc/lispref/functions.texi (Advising Named Functions):
Clarify " no advice"
---
doc/lispref/functions.texi | 13 ++++++++++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/lispref/functions.texi b/doc/lispref/functions.texi
index 53525e6b386..236b823e7e6 100644
--- a/doc/lispref/functions.texi
+++ b/doc/lispref/functions.texi
@@ -1994,9 +1994,16 @@ advice. Advice can also cause confusion in debugging, if the person doing the
debugging does not notice or remember that the function has been modified
by advice.
- For these reasons, advice should be reserved for the cases where you
-cannot modify a function's behavior in any other way. If it is
-possible to do the same thing via a hook, that is preferable
+ Note that the problems are not due to advice per se, but to the act
+of modifying a named function. It is even more problematic to modify
+a named function via lower-level primitives like @code{fset},
+@code{defalias}, or @code{cl-letf}. From that point of view, advice
+is the better way to modify a named function because it keeps track of
+the modifications, so they can be listed and undone.
+
+ Modifying a named function should be reserved for
+the cases where you cannot modify Emacs' behavior in any other way.
+If it is possible to do the same thing via a hook, that is preferable
(@pxref{Hooks}). If you simply want to change what a particular key
does, it may be better to write a new command, and remap the old
command's key bindings to the new one (@pxref{Remapping Commands}).
--
2.39.5