[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why no
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not? |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:38 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
> Besides, the Elisp manual page "Change Hooks" only describes one
> situation for unbalanced calls. This is one large enclosing before-
> followed by a sequence of smaller after-s.
That's right. And the sequence can be empty.
>> Again, I don't see why this could cause any trouble. Inserting an
>> empty string is not an outlandish situation, and any modification hook
>> must be prepared to (trivially) deal with it.
> This may be true, but I wouldn't bet anything on it being true for all
> existing hooks.
It's probably harmless to run the after change hook for such
a non-change, but it should never be necessary.
Stefan
- /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/12/21
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/12/21
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/12/21
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/12/22
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/12/24
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/12/24
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/12/24
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/12/24
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/12/29
- Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not?,
Stefan Monnier <=