Re: buffer-swap-text and multibyteness

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Yes. we agree (except that switch-to-buffer is a function I would
>> prefer to see disapppear, so better use something else like
>> pop-to-buffer or just set-buffer).

> Is above "Yes" also to this question?

>> > Is the conbination of set-buffer and switch-to-buffer
>> > heavier than two buffer-swap-text?

buffer-swap-text does not meddle with window<->buffer association, so
the equivalent is just `set-buffer'.  I.e. we'd just use

  (with-current-buffer rmail-data-buffer
    ...)

which is a lot lighter weight than a pair of buffer-swap-text.


        Stefan