[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: flyspell bug
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: flyspell bug |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:14:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden> writes:
> I often wondered why there are no hooks associated with switching
> buffers, windows, and frames.
>
> These activities are too low level. Certainly in the past it was not
> safe to run Lisp code for switching buffers, and maybe not for windows
> either. Nowadays, since Lisp code can run during redisplay, maybe
> it would be safe. But I do not like the idea. Do you really want
> set-buffer to run Lisp code you don't know about?
I was not suggesting to do this at the low-level.
Rather I would do it in the top-level command loop, e.g.
by saving the current window/buffer/frame before running
the pre-command hook and compare them to the value after
running the post-command-hook -- and run the appropriate
hooks at that time.
That way, e.g. set-buffer on its own won't run any unknown Lisp code.
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Kim F. Storm, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/03
- Re: flyspell bug,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/03
- Re: flyspell bug, Kim F. Storm, 2005/10/04
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/04
- Re: flyspell bug, David Kastrup, 2005/10/05
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/03
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/05
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/05
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/10
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/12
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/13