[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug#8219: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219)
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: bug#8219: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219) |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:15:05 +0200 |
> From: Chong Yidong <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:58:57 -0500
>
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >> Hence, in the aftermath of a deletion, buffer B's values of PT (and
> >> BUF_BEGV and BUF_ZV) can be larger than BUF_ZV.
> >
> > Isn't that a bug, right there? Why doesn't del_range_2 update the
> > indirect buffer (B) as well, when deletion removes text so that its PT
> > becomes invalid?
>
> This is not currently easy. We don't keep track of indirect buffers
> (looping over the buffer list each time we do a deletion would be rather
> inefficient), so this would need some new members of the buffer struct.
We could do that lazily, whenever something (including redisplay) is
done on a buffer that happens to be an indirect buffer.
- Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219), Chong Yidong, 2011/03/11
- Re: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219), Eli Zaretskii, 2011/03/11
- Re: bug#8219: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219), Chong Yidong, 2011/03/11
- Re: bug#8219: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219), Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/11
- Re: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219), Chong Yidong, 2011/03/13
- Re: bug#8219: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219), Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/13
- Re: bug#8219: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219), Chong Yidong, 2011/03/14