|
From: | David Kastrup |
Subject: | Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer' |
Date: | Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:34:45 +0100 |
User-agent: | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > Then how about changing the text of the warning to something like > > Warning: `save-excursion' will not preserve point in the other buffer > set by `set-buffer' Is there a particular reason that nobody is interested in letting the warning be about the case that is supposed to be problematic, rather than about a number of _intended_ parts of the behavior? The problem seems more like Warning: `save-excursion' will preserve point and mark in the current buffer even if set-buffer does not actually change buffers. So why do people want to warn about non-problems and/or utter nonsense (like the current "save-excursion defeated by set-buffer") all the time? What is wrong with warning about the problem itself? -- David Kastrup
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |