[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2)

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:21:00 +0300

> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:28:04 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> > And why isn't it enough to make only the change you proposed in part 1
> > of your report?
> I tried that, but it didn't work.

Answering myself here: that didn't work because the part you proposed
to change, i.e.

  if (NILP (visit) && total > 0)
      if (!NILP (BVAR (current_buffer, file_truename))
          /* Make binding buffer-file-name to nil effective.  */
          && !NILP (BVAR (current_buffer, filename))
          && SAVE_MODIFF >= MODIFF)
        we_locked_file = true;
      prepare_to_modify_buffer (PT, PT, NULL);

is not executed when REPLACE is non-nil.  So adding the condition you
suggested there will have no effect at all.

The relevant code is indeed the 3 calls to del_range_byte.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]