>> -HOOK should be a symbol. If HOOK is void, it is first set to
>> -nil. If HOOK's value is a single function, it is changed to a
>> -list of functions.
> Is the bit about setting HOOK to nil incorrect? Because the new text
> drops that part.
That's an internal detail that's not observable to the caller anyway.
>> "Remove from the value of HOOK the function FUNCTION.
>> HOOK should be a symbol, and FUNCTION may be any valid function. If
>> FUNCTION isn't the value of HOOK, or, if FUNCTION doesn't appear in the
>> -list of hooks to run in HOOK, then nothing is done. See `add-hook'.
>> +list of functions to run in HOOK, then nothing is done. See `add-hook'.
>
> "list of functions to run in HOOK" is ambiguous wrt what "in HOOK"
> refers to. I would rephrase:
>
> If FUNCTION is not the value of HOOK and is not a member of the list
> that is the value of HOOK, do nothing.
Maybe we can simplify the wording a bit by focusing less about whether
the hook's value is a function or a list of functions, and talking about
the "sequence" or "set" of functions (which can be represented by
a list of functions or a function)?
Something like:
"Remove FUNCTION from HOOK's functions.
HOOK should be a symbol, and FUNCTION may be any valid function.
Does nothing if HOOK does not currently contain FUNCTION.
Compares functions with `equal`, which means that it can be
slow if FUNCTION is not a symbol. See `add-hook'.
- Stefan
