[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is this correct?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Is this correct? |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:07:26 +0200 |
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:44:15 +0000
> From: Uday Reddy <uDOTsDOTreddy@cs.bham.ac.uk>
>
> On 2/26/2011 6:54 AM, Tim X wrote:
>
> >
> > (defun force-mode-line-update (&optional all)
> > (if all (with-current-buffer (other-buffer)))
> > (set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p)))
> >
> > The bit that doesn't look quite right to me is
> >
> > (if all (with-current-buffer (other-buffer)))
> >
> > I'm assuming that by calling with-current-buffer, this will temporarily
> > make 'other-buffer' active and as a side effect, the mode-line etc will get
> > updated.
>
> That would be quite magical if it were true.
??
> My guess is that the parentheses have been misplaced.
????? Doesn't force-mode-line-update work for you?
> It should have been
>
> (if all (with-current-buffer (other-buffer)
> (set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p)))
> (set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p))
>
> This doesn't make it right of course. The "other-buffer" doesn't equate
> to "all" buffers, and pretty often, the "other-buffer" is an invisible
> buffer. It is not guaranteed that the current-buffer is a visible
> buffer either. So, this code would seem to be wrong at many levels!
I gets better: `(set-buffer-modified-p (buffer-modified-p))'
apparently does nothing, because it sets the buffer's modified flag to
the same value it has already. So this function actually does nothing
at all, right?
Re: Is this correct?, Uday Reddy, 2011/02/26
- Re: Is this correct?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Message not available
Message not available