From 211ee13fb5d973a11988b8425be90cac2c8f0104 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stefan Monnier 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}). -- 2.39.2