Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]

[Stefan Monnier]

>> -  Do @emph{not} expect the before-change hooks and the after-change
>> -hooks be called in balanced pairs around each buffer change.  Also
>> -don't expect the before-change hooks to be called for every chunk of
>> -text Emacs is about to delete.  These hooks are provided on the
>> -assumption that Lisp programs will use either before- or the
>> -after-change hooks, but not both, and the boundaries of the region
>> -where the changes happen might include more than just the actual
>> -changed text, or even lump together several changes done piecemeal.
>> +   Do @emph{not} expect the before-change hooks and the after-change
>> +hooks be called in balanced pairs around each buffer change.
>> +The before-change-functions region is a conservative bound on the zero
>> +or more fine-grained changes to follow.  Emacs informs user code about
>> +the actual changes to the buffer through calls to
>> +after-change-functions; these fine-grained changes will always fall
>> +inside the broad change region Emacs describes by calling
>> +before-change-functions.

> You removed the part about text deletion, which is not specific to
> revert-buffer, so that information is now lost.  I don't want to
> lose it.

I do want to lose it, because this failure to call b-c-f is a bug, not
something part of the intended behavior.

I could live with something like "There are still some known bugs in
which b-c-f fails to be called", tho.

> Other than that, I don't see how your text is more accurate, it's just
> a different wording dancing around the same issues trying to side-step
> them by replacing one vague description by another.

They do seem mostly equivalent, so if it can satisfy one of the
complainant I'm happy to accept the change ;-)


        Stefan