[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer'
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer' |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:03:55 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Irrelevant: neither example uses (save-excursion (set-buffer ..) ...).
>> Don't be disingenuous. with-temp-buffer uses with-current-buffer, which
>> is basically (save-current-buffer (set-buffer ...
>
> save-current-buffer != save-excursion
>
> This warning is specificaly aimed at reminding people that the two are
> different, so you clearly need to see this warning a few more times
> before you start to understand what it's about.
And you clearly need to reread my post to understand what it's about.
If you macroexpand with-temp-buffer and save-current-buffer, my argument
still holds: the warning is wrong, and the macro-expanded code
explicitly uses all those commands which you claim are equivalent in
this situation, with different results.
--
David Kastrup
- `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Eli Zaretskii, 2009/12/18
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Roland Winkler, 2009/12/20
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/21
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', David Kastrup, 2009/12/21
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', martin rudalics, 2009/12/22
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/22
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', David Kastrup, 2009/12/23
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/23
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer',
David Kastrup <=
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/30
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Roland Winkler, 2009/12/24