Re: EWW buffers

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

 >> It’s also perfectly possible to create that buffer but do /not/
 >> switch to it until it’s ready.

 > Actually changing the displayed buffer from a process filter
 > (i. e. asynchronously) is a bad idea, just like prompting the user.

        Yet, this is exactly what EWW currently does.  Specifically,
        eww-setup-buffer is called asynchronously when the download
        completes (from the eww-display- functions, which in turn get
        called from eww-render, which is used as the ‘url-retrieve’
        callback by EWW), /and/ eww-setup-buffer uses switch-to-buffer.

        I have filed a bug (#19109) for the issue, which was promptly
        tagged ‘notabug’ and closed.  Could someone please check if it
        really is a proper resolution?

        Personally, I’ve replaced switch-to-buffer there with
        set-buffer, and use that for I guess around a year now, –
        without any apparent issues.

 > So yes, the *eww* buffer should be created and displayed right away
 > (empty at first).  Iceweasel does the same, FWIW, so I don't think
 > it's a problem.

        (Neither do I.)

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  http://boycottsystemd.org/  … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A