[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in E

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:10:34 +0300

> From: Yuan Fu <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:02:58 -0400
> Cc: Štěpán Němec <address@hidden>,
>  Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,
>  emacs-devel <address@hidden>,
>  Andrea Corallo <address@hidden>
> >> (In short, `dired-readin' binds `inhibit-modification-hooks' to t, so
> >> the buffer changes caused by populating dired buffers are not noticeable
> >> in `after-change-functions'.)
> >> I was wondering if I should report it as a bug, despite the workaround
> >> not being particularly painful in this case (there's 
> >> `dired-after-readin-hook').
> > 
> > I think it deserves a bug report, yes.
> > 
> > 
> >        Stefan
> > 
> Is it really a bug of dired-mode? Dired-mode probably has a good reason to 
> bind `inhibit-modification-hooks` to t. And if we provide such feature 
> (disabling after-change-functions), we should expect people using it. Maybe 
> there should be a reliable way to be informed of buffer changes (that cannot 
> be silenced).

I agree with Stefan: it's a bug.  All dired-readin needs to do is call
the modification hooks after it's done reading in the directory.  It's
just an optimization that it inhibits the hooks while it runs: read
the comments there and you will see why it is done.

IMO, inhibit-modification-hooks is for when some code makes a
temporary change, or a change that no one is supposed to care about,
like changing faces.  Any other case is a bug.

reply via email to

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