[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks
From: |
Basil L. Contovounesios |
Subject: |
bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:16:20 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Eli Zaretskii [2023-01-11 15:22 -0500] wrote:
>> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, 49160@debbugs.gnu.org, dick
>> <dick.r.chiang@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 20:13:21 +0000
>>
>> Fmake_indirect_buffer continues to run buffer-list-update-hook
>> regardless of the new argument. Any objections to changing that?
>
> buffer-list-update-hook is not a buffer-hook, strictly speaking.
Right, but it's inhibited together with 'strict' buffer-hooks (and
documented as such) everywhere except for make-indirect-buffer: see
get-buffer-create, generate-new-buffer, struct buffer, "(elisp) Buffer
List", "(elisp) Creating Buffers", "(elisp) Buffer Internals", and
etc/NEWS.28.
In fact, "(elisp) Indirect Buffers" even says about
make-indirect-buffer:
*Note Creating Buffers, for the meaning of INHIBIT-BUFFER-HOOKS.
Where "(elisp) Creating Buffers" elaborates:
Both functions accept an optional argument INHIBIT-BUFFER-HOOKS. If
it is non-‘nil’, the buffer they create does not run the hooks
‘kill-buffer-hook’, ‘kill-buffer-query-functions’ (*note Killing
Buffers), and ‘buffer-list-update-hook’ (*note Buffer List). This
avoids slowing down internal or temporary buffers that are never
presented to users or passed on to other applications.
So while inhibit-buffer-hooks may be a slightly loose name, I think
make-indirect-buffer should nevertheless heed it for
buffer-list-update-hook as well, for the same reason this is done
everywhere else.
> So I'm not sure we want this. What is the real-life use case behind
> this request?
The real-life use case is satisfying this bug report+patch from me,
fixing what seems like a simple oversight, and the ensuing peace of mind
that I will be grateful for, of course ;).
Thanks,
--
Basil
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2023/01/11
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/11
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks,
Basil L. Contovounesios <=
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/12
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks, Stefan Monnier, 2023/01/12
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/14
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks, Stefan Monnier, 2023/01/14
- bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2023/01/17