From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Tom Breton (Tehom)" <tehom@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Hook request and patch
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:54:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <1036.66.30.178.137.1230749645.squirrel@mail.panix.com>
References: <5483.66.30.178.137.1230610952.squirrel@mail.panix.com>
	<45C5E5C5-76B5-40C8-B836-07E1E80C704F@uva.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LI6Cm-0005lf-27
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:54:08 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LI6Ck-0005hS-3h
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:54:07 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49425 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LI6Cj-0005hJ-W4
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:54:06 -0500
Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]:52273)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <tehom@panix.com>) id 1LI6Cj-0002RL-Kt
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:54:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <45C5E5C5-76B5-40C8-B836-07E1E80C704F@uva.nl>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

> Hi Tom,
>
> is there a reason why you did not put the hook right after
> the include file moment?
>
> - Carsten

Yes, two.  But of course your judgement should take precedence.

In order to make my change slightly less severe, I put it just before
operations of a similar nature, and it seemed to me that the various "fin=
d
links" operations were most like it - but perhaps that reflects on the
particular purpose I was using it for.

And it seemed to me that putting it after the various "protect" operation=
s
was better than putting it before them.

Tom