Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2)

[Phillip Lord]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> Okay, yes, I understand now, and yes, this should be conservative, in
>> the sense that it works for all changes, I guess. We are making the
>> assumption here that "start" is always consistent between b-c-f and
>> a-c-f,
>
> No, we don't make such an assumption either.  The assumption we make is
> that the region passed to a-c-f is within the region passed to b-c-f
> (i.e. is tighter).


Let me rephrase. Can I make the assumption that start is consistent? If
not I need to check to see whether they are inconsistent.

I'm testing the code out at the moment. My test cases work anyway, but
it will take more use in practice until I am confident.

Phil