[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer'
From: |
Davis Herring |
Subject: |
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer' |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:08:53 -0800 (PST) |
User-agent: |
SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.7.lanl7 |
> save-excursion only saves point in the current buffer, so
>
> (save-excursion (set-buffer foo) (goto-char (point-min)))
>
> will move point in foo and the point-saving done by save-excursion is
> useless. So either you want to use
If we know that (eq foo (current-buffer)), we should drop the
`set-buffer'. If we know that not to be the case, we should use
`with-current-buffer' (or perhaps `save-current-buffer'). But what if it
could but needn't be?
Davis
--
This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', (continued)
- RE: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Drew Adams, 2010/01/10
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2010/01/09
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Harald Hanche-Olsen, 2010/01/10
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', martin rudalics, 2010/01/10
- RE: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Drew Adams, 2010/01/10
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Harald Hanche-Olsen, 2010/01/10
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer',
Davis Herring <=