[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history
From: |
Barry OReilly |
Subject: |
bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated) |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:36:17 -0400 |
> The "move-after" markers will be at (+ del-pos (length
> inserted-text)) rather than at del-pos.
Right, thanks for catching that flaw.
> I'd have the same comment here, but if we emit a warning for sole
> marker-adjustments in the "non-region" code, we don't really have to
> worry about them here.
If you're saying changes under undo-make-selective-list are not
necessary, remember that currently it can create a list like:
(nil (#<marker at 141 in *scratch*> . -3) (#<marker at 190 in *scratch*>
. -3) nil (aaa . 141) nil (141 . 144) nil)
I don't think the original recipe of this bug report should generate a
warning. Rather, I had undo-make-selective-list filter out the marker
adjustments so as the above list would have (aaa . 141) at the head.
> I think we should only change the entry corresponding to a deletion
> such that it directly handles all the immediately following
> marker-adjustments
They don't always immediately follow. An integer record can be between
them. For example, at the end of the undo-test-marker-adjustment-moved
test I posted previously, buffer-undo-list is:
(nil (1 . 4) nil (abc . 1) 12 (#<marker at 7 in *temp*-216909> . -1) nil (1 . 12) (t . 0))
Also, (t sec-high sec-low microsec picosec) entries can be in between.
eg it was easy to bring about this buffer-undo-list:
Value: (nil
(#(" " 0 3
(fontified t))
. 12)
(t 20985 26927 0 0)
(#<marker at 12 in foo.py> . -2)
(#<marker at 12 in foo.py> . -2)
(#<marker in no buffer> . -3)
(#<marker in no buffer> . -2))
I suppose some options are:
• Implement your proposal but skip over the (t ...) and integer
records
• Restructure the C code so as marker adjustments are always
immediately before deletion records
• Revisit the approach of fixing markers that move to unrelated
locations.
Let me know and thank you for your guidance.
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/11
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan Monnier, 2014/03/12
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/12
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan Monnier, 2014/03/13
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan Monnier, 2014/03/13
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/13
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/17
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/17
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated),
Barry OReilly <=
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/19
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/19
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/19
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/23
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/24
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/24
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/24
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/24