Re: buffer-swap-text and multibyteness

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> > I think rmail-buffer and rmail-view-buffer should be set
> > consistently to the unibyte buffer containing RMAIL file and
> > to the multibyte buffer showing one message to a user.

> > And, most of the interactive functions should just do
> > something like this:

> >   (set-buffer rmail-buffer)
> >   ...
> >   (switch-to-buffer rmail-view-buffer)

> > Is the conbination of set-buffer and switch-to-buffer
> > heavier than two buffer-swap-text?

> Yes. we agree (except that switch-to-buffer is a function I would
> prefer to see disapppear, so better use something else like
> pop-to-buffer or just set-buffer).

Is above "Yes" also to this question?

> > Is the conbination of set-buffer and switch-to-buffer
> > heavier than two buffer-swap-text?

By the way,

> Also, I'd prefer to use `rmail-buffer' for the multibyte buffer that's
> displayed, and rmail-data-buffer for the raw unibyte mbox.

I don't have strong preference for those variable names as
far as their setting doesn't change by swapping.

---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden