From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#56682: feature/improved-locked-narrowing 9dee6df39c: Reworked locked narrowing. Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 22:42:56 +0000 Message-ID: <43562d4dd9dffd81938f@heytings.org> References: <166939872890.18950.12581667269687468681@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20221125175209.51166C004B6@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <6c9d91cffc1bfd801530@heytings.org> <6c9d91cffc394613f58a@heytings.org> <83eds0ksev.fsf@gnu.org> <8aadf0ddd54c85c8144a@heytings.org> <831qnhg3d9.fsf@gnu.org> <9757fbea37611e9c44b9@heytings.org> <83cz6yacxt.fsf@gnu.org> <6943e04e30e5a02a52e6@heytings.org> <838rhk5fy1.fsf@gnu.org> <6943e04e30a40824e107@heytings.org> <83k0143q37.fsf@gnu.org> <94821a0ef100102ac9e0@heytings.org> <83bkmdz04y.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35790"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 56682@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 01 23:44:22 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pNLq1-000991-UH for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 23:44:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pNLpl-0006iz-1J; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:44:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pNLpj-0006iq-G3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pNLpi-0000M8-Th for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:44:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pNLpi-00057U-Fq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:44:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 22:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 56682 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 56682-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B56682.167529138319603 (code B ref 56682); Wed, 01 Feb 2023 22:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 56682) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2023 22:43:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60081 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pNLol-000567-DM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:43:03 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:39608) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pNLog-00055f-6m for 56682@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:43:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1675291377; bh=5lNKkdvcjafAcOkwd4pWKEaABMVEmHHfx3fhqHO58ds=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=BQHGzXU8tXOtZpp1fvoR0IKoAvYuwu7ZvIpoc8YEBuS1AzV1A0/NhEEzDJ3u4TPxk qe32EZRbUnQLuyW7iM9AY9OxUg2V/YF5JjEz+FmPI63pj1OCRLlD5V/kUjTmFFBLbU x40gMZvCDIlPSxlH66HcIrFSwd1UnG4f4JHdRIUawSbvEhcsXB2r5lXRrRkYTDD6rX VrAR9Mpy+4bt0ZMkER0wxE97jcYyMDOXnIdknL69hX4nnMkSYsxvKF+SRtJKSPnwXV G0wsMQ7r4vcbKM75u0SQ4Msoa5x+GCLPLZoCbD4EaNc7LrkV8vyPrVkYPB64Yi14y6 CI4ABw9UFBFIA== In-Reply-To: <83bkmdz04y.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:254609 Archived-At: > > I must admit that it's very strange to hear this from you. > When I erred, I have no problems whatsoever to admit that I erred. > > Those very opinions were voiced by several other people over the last > year, and you always disagreed with these very arguments in the > strongest terms, citing various use cases and data points, with several > relevant files and modes. I wonder what have happened that you now see > in the code what you didn't see then, even when others told you they saw > it. > I don't think it's useful to start a discussion about what I said and meant to say, but FTR I do not agree with the above. The only thing I strongly disagreed with is Dmitry's claim that the existing mechanisms are sufficient to limit the damage of ill-behaving modes. For the rest, I tried to find the best compromise to handle buffers with long lines as well as possible. As we all know, determining where to place the cursor is hard. I did believe that adding a forced narrowing would be helpful, and in some cases it is, but in other cases it isn't, and all in all I now consider that Emacs would be in a better shape without that mechanism. In particular, the fifth point is the result of the (recent) addition of a mechanism to unlock a locked narrowing, which makes the exercise almost pointless. > > Anyway, after thinking about this, I cannot agree to removing what we > now have on emacs-29. It's too late for that, and I'm not prepared to > delay the pretest for any significant time. So we will go into the > pretest with what we have, and decide what to do with it in Emacs 29.2 > and 30.1 according to how the chips will fall. > Okay, if that's your decision. IMO just going back to what the code did earlier is (very) safe, but I cannot do that without your approval. > > I guess by suggesting to remove the code you were also telling me that > you won't be fixing those documentation issues, which you promised to > work on a month ago? If so, I guess this is one more buck that stops > with me... > Even if I think it's not TRT to do, I can still do that.