[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:37:00 -0400 |
1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-tick' always
(invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-tick'?
I do not understand "imply" in this context.
With
other words, suppose we have a thing called CHAR_MODIFF: Would we have
to support the invariant
MODIFF >= CHAR_MODIFF >= SAVE_MODIFF
Yes, that is the idea.
if (MODIFF - 1 == SAVE_MODIFF)
SAVE_MODIFF++;
I think that's innocuous but, if someone wanted to increment SAVE_MODIFF
in order to "ignore" a _text-property_ change only, the invariant above
could get violated. Is anyone aware of whether such a hack exists or is
planned somewhere?
They should update CHAR_MODIFF too.
3. `first-change-hook' currently runs whenever a text-property is
assigned (by font-lock, for example). I believe this should change with
the new function too?
No, I think that should stay the same. This change is safe because
ALL it will do is create CHAR_MODIFF and provide a function to examine
it.
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/21
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/22
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/23
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/23
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/24
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/26