Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:42:23 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> 
> > So, if worse comes to worst, you could trigger such a complete scan
> > after revert-buffer, e.g. in a specialized revert-buffer-function.
> 
> Why would that be bad?

Not bad, just potentially expensive for large buffers.  But if that's
"good enough", I don't really mind.

However, the patch you show below doesn't implement this, does it?