help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Is this correct?


From: Tim X
Subject: Re: Is this correct?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:38:14 +1100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:44:15 +0000
>> From: Uday Reddy <address@hidden>
>> 
>> On 2/26/2011 6:54 AM, Tim X wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > (defun force-mode-line-update (&optional all)
>> >    (if all (with-current-buffer (other-buffer)))
>> >    (set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p)))
>> >
>> > The bit that doesn't look quite right to me is
>> >
>> > (if all (with-current-buffer (other-buffer)))
>> >
>> > I'm assuming that by calling with-current-buffer, this will temporarily
>> > make 'other-buffer' active and as a side effect, the mode-line etc will get
>> > updated.
>> 
>> That would be quite magical if it were true.
>
> ??
>
>> My guess is that the parentheses have been misplaced.
>
> ????? Doesn't force-mode-line-update work for you?
>
>> It should have been
>> 
>>      (if all (with-current-buffer (other-buffer)
>>                  (set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p)))
>>      (set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p))
>> 
>> This doesn't make it right of course.  The "other-buffer" doesn't equate 
>> to "all" buffers, and pretty often, the "other-buffer" is an invisible 
>> buffer.  It is not guaranteed that the current-buffer is a visible 
>> buffer either.  So, this code would seem to be wrong at many levels!
>
> I gets better: `(set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p))'
> apparently does nothing, because it sets the buffer's modified flag to
> the same value it has already.  So this function actually does nothing
> at all, right?
>

I looked at the C code that implements set-buffer-modified-p at it seems
to me (who freely admits not understanding the low C level of emacs!)
that as a side effect, the function updates mode-lines etc regardless of
the setting/value for buffer-modified-p. Therefore, my interpretation
was that this would call the function without actually changing the
state of the modified flag and by side effect, result in an update of
the mode-line. 

I do agree it doesn't look right and personally don't like code which
does something via a non-intuitive/obvious side effect. While possibly
convenient, from a maintenance standpoint, it would be better if it was
more deliberate/obvious IMO.

Tim

-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au


reply via email to

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