[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Dec 2020 18:06:04 +0200 |
> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie>
> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rudalics@gmx.at, larsi@gnus.org,
> 34765@debbugs.gnu.org, alexanderm@web.de
> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:15:30 +0000
>
> >> +By default, undo information (@pxref{Undo}) is not recorded in the
> >> +buffer created by this macro (but @var{body} can enable that, if
> >> +needed). The temporary buffer also does not run the hooks
> >> +@code{kill-buffer-hook}, @code{kill-buffer-query-functions}
> >> +(@pxref{Killing Buffers}), and @code{buffer-list-update-hook}
> >> +(@pxref{Buffer List}).
> >
> > It would be good to have here index entries about undo and those hooks
> > not being used by default in temporary buffers.
>
> Something like this?
>
> @cindex undo in temporary buffers
> @cindex @code{kill-buffer-hook} in temporary buffers
> @cindex @code{kill-buffer-query-functions} in temporary buffers
> @cindex @code{buffer-list-update-hook} in temporary buffers
Yes.
> >> +Like @code{with-temp-buffer} (@pxref{Definition of with-temp-buffer,,
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > I think this word will look better if not capitalized.
>
> The printed label "see Current Buffer" should be displayed instead of
> this word, which is part of the anchor. Is that okay?
Sorry, I didn't see that this is an anchor. So I think the anchor
should not start with a capital letter, as it reads more naturally
that way, I think. And then the name should be used without
capitalization in the cross-references. Obviously, this is a minor
nit.
> >> +static void
> >> +run_buffer_list_update_hook (struct buffer *buf)
> >> +{
> >> + if (! (NILP (Vrun_hooks) || (buf && buf->inhibit_buffer_hooks)))
> > ^^^
> > Why this test? is it possible for this function to be called with buf
> > a NULL pointer?
>
> Yes, in Fmake_indirect_buffer, which doesn't check inhibit_buffer_hooks.
>
> The alternatives would be for Fmake_indirect_buffer to not call
> run_buffer_list_update_hook, or to not bother adding
> run_buffer_list_update_hook at all. Do you have a preference?
I think just having a comment there saying that make-indirect-buffer
calls this with NULL argument should be okay.
Thanks.
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, (continued)
bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2020/12/18
bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Stefan Monnier, 2020/12/18
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2020/12/18
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/12/19
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2020/12/19
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2020/12/19
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/12/20
- Message not available
- bug#34765: 26.1; with-temp-buffer should not run buffer-list-update-hook, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2020/12/20