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

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think to really avoid the complexity for mode authors, b-c-f and a-c-f
> need to not only balance, but also to be consistent. At the moment, they
> are not that either -- they can signal different locations for a given
> change.

I think "balanced + a guarantee that a-c-f covers a subset of b-c-f" is
sufficient, since you can then trivially extend a-c-f's subset to the
corresponding "identical" locations if you need it.

AFAIK we do have the "a-c-f covers a subset of b-c-f" property,
right now (modulo bugs, of course).


        Stefan