[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: |
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:42:38 -0400 |
> Rather than increment CHARS_MODIFF separately,
> it should copy the value from MODIFF.
> That way, values of CHARS_MODIFF will be comparable with values
> that were copied from MODIFF.
Yes, but it will deprive you of eventually introducing a variable
SAVE_CHARS_MODIFF and tell whether an insertion/deletion occurred
since the last save because CHARS_MODIFF > SAVE_CHARS_MODIFF.
I do not see how you reach that conclusion. As far as I can see, if
we want to someday have SAVE_CHARS_MODIFF, my way of handling
CHARS_MODIFF will not be any obstacle to doing so.
However, with my way of handling CHARS_MODIFF, there is no need
for a separate SAVE_CHARS_MODIFF. SAVE_MODIFF can be used.
If CHARS_MODIFF > SAVE_MODIFF, then the text in the buffer
has been altered. If SAVE_MODIFF >= CHARS_MODIFF, then the
text has not been altered since the last save.
This is assuming that saving copies MODIFF to SAVE_MODIFF,
and that we copy MODIFF to CHARS_MODIFF whenever we change
the characters in the buffer.
+ int chars_modiff; /* This counts insert/delete events
+ for this buffer. It is incremented for
+ each such event, and never otherwise
+ changed. */
That comment is not true for the current code.
Aside from that, your latest patch is clean enough.
Perhaps the cleanest solution would be to equip modify_region with an
additional parameter, say preserve_chars_modiff, and do everything in
modify_region.
It might be better. Please give it a try and see.
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, (continued)
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/20
- 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, 2006/07/21
- 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, 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 <=
- 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
- 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, 2006/07/27
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, David Kastrup, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/27
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, David Kastrup, 2006/07/27
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/27
RE: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Marshall, Simon, 2006/07/26