[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer'
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer' |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:33:08 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
> 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?
Let's try it this way:
If we know that (eq foo 0), we should drop the increment. If we know
that not to be the case, we should just use (incf bar foo). But what
if it could but needn't be?
I.e. just use with-current-buffer and stop worrying about the case where
it may end up doing nothing.
Stefan
- 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, 2010/01/04