Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2)

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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