[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2)
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) |
Date: |
Sun, 31 Jul 2016 15:21:58 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
Hello, Noam.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 09:58:50AM -0400, Noam Postavsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The pertinent functions are insert_1_both, replace_range, del_range_1,
> > del_range_byte, and del_range_both. These functions fall into two
> > groups, the first two in group 1 and the rest in group 2. Those in group
> > 2 always call signal_after_change, those in group 1 never do.
> replace_range should be in group 2 as well, no?
Er, yes, it should. ;-) So we have a group of 4 and a single function.
Thanks for spotting that.
> > There are invocations of group 2 functions with `prepare' false. This
> > wrongly invokes after-change-functions without having invoked
> > before-change-functions.
> replace_range has one call with prepare = false, it's in
> Fsubst_char_in_region. I think the idea is that the caller takes care
> of calling both before (by calling modify_text) and after (by explicit
> call and/or(??) by replace_range) change functions, though the code is
> sufficiently convoluted that I can't really say whether it works
> correctly or not.
By taking signal_after_change out of prepare_to_modify_buffer, I'm
rather hoping to reduce the convolution.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Alan Mackenzie, 2016/07/31
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Noam Postavsky, 2016/07/31
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2),
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/31
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Stefan Monnier, 2016/07/31
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/31
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Stefan Monnier, 2016/07/31