[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2)
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:28:12 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
> But then why do we use a similar logic for after-change-functions?
> Like this:
> if (inserted > 0 && total > 0
> && (NILP (visit) || !NILP (replace)))
> {
> signal_after_change (PT, 0, inserted);
> update_compositions (PT, PT, CHECK_BORDER);
> }
> IOW, we don't call after-change-functions if nothing was inserted.
Sounds like a bug as well (unless it's called elsewhere in that case).
It's OK to skip calling a-c-f if we did not insert anything *and* did
not remove anything either.
Stefan
Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/08/01
Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Richard Stallman, 2016/08/01
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Alan Mackenzie, 2016/08/02
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/08/02
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Alan Mackenzie, 2016/08/02
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/08/02
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/08/02
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Alan Mackenzie, 2016/08/02
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/08/02