On Mon Apr 28 2014 Roland Winkler wrote: > For example, it's a left-over from BBDB 2 that inside calls of > bbdb-notice-mail-hook and bbdb-notice-record-hook, > bbdb-change-hook is not called. I do not know why this was set up > that way. It appears random to me.
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that there is no reason bbdb-notice-mail-hook and bbdb-notice-record-hook should treat bbdb-change-hook specially (by suppressing calls of bbdb-change-hook). So unless someone posts here a good reason for this, I am going to remove this (i.e., I'll remove the internal variable bbdb-notice-hook-pending which handles this special treatment). If someone really needs something of that kind, a simple and clean way to achieve this is to let-bind bbdb-change-hook to nil inside calls of bbdb-notice--mail-hook and bbdb-notice-record-hook. (This apporach even offers finer control than the current approach as one can temporarily remove individual elements in bbdb-change-hook.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ bbdb-info@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bbdb-info BBDB Home Page: http://bbdb.sourceforge.net/
