[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.
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2), (continued)
- Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2),
Eli Zaretskii <=