[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:46:29 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:27:29 -0400
> > You misunderstand what Stefan says.  He says not calling the
> > before-change hook _at_all_ is a bug.  Not calling it for every chunk
> > of deleted text is not necessarily a bug, if there's a previous less
> > fine-grained call to the hook.  And that's what the text above
> > conveys: that note every chunk to be deleted will have its own call to
> > a hook.
> FWIW, when I read
>     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
> I do understand this to mean "b-c-f is just unreliable" and more
> specifically it does sound to me like it refers to the known
> insert-file-contents bug.  If that was not your intention, then consider
> this as evidence that a rewording could be beneficial.

I was not referring to this text, I was referring to our discussion.

> He considers his text to spell it in enough detail.  So unless you
> disagree with the text itself, I think his text is an improvement: you
> both agree with the validity and level of precision of the description
> in his new text, which is not the case with the current text.

I don't think it's an improvement.  It replaces specific practical
advice with abstract principle whose relation to practice might not be
clear to some.

Really, Stefan, after all these years, I'd expect you to trust me a
bit more on documentation issues.

reply via email to

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