[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The unwarranted scrolling assumption

From: Lennart Borgman
Subject: Re: The unwarranted scrolling assumption
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:32:27 +0200

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> From: Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:59:12 +0200
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>>       address@hidden
>> > After trying to restore the clip_changed value when save-restriction,
>> > widen etc unnecessarily changed I suddenly wonder why they changed it.
>> > Is not this something that only redisplay should handle? redisplay_can
>> > easily save the clipping when it sets clip_changed to 0 and compare
>> > with that when it enters redisplay_window and set clip_changed to 1 if
>> > the saved clipping does not match.
>> >
>> > Does that sound reasonable? (I do not know if I am missing something.)
>> At least it works. I just tested. First time I am using Emacs without
>> "jumping scrolling"! :-)
>> If you think this is the right way to fix it I will send patches later
>> when I cleaned up a bit.
> You are posting conclusions without supporting data, and patches based
> on those conclusions.  You also didn't answer the questions I asked.
> Sorry, I cannot help you like that.
> At the very least, please post the shortest way of reproducing the
> original problem starting with "emacs -Q".  Then, maybe, I will be
> able to figure this out myself.

Thanks, but I do not understand what you mean. Several of us has said
that the problem is easily reproduceable.

The conclusions are based on the logic of the source code. But you
seem to think they are unwarranted. Can you please explain what part
of the patches you think are unwarranted or unexplained?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]