From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17235: Undo in region adjusts past positions incorrectly Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:31:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1398222093 29119 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2014 03:01:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:01:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17235@debbugs.gnu.org To: Barry OReilly Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 23 05:01:25 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnR7-00064x-HE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:01:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58349 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnR7-0001yp-5D for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:01:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50046) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnQs-0001fr-6b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:01:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnQk-0003fe-JE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:01:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:47403) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnQk-0003fX-Gt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:01:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnQk-0003uc-3U for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:01:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:01:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17235 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17235-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17235.139822204614992 (code B ref 17235); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:01:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17235) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2014 03:00:46 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55558 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnQT-0003tc-F0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:00:46 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:54099) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WcnQM-0003re-7C for 17235@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:00:40 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id s3N30T1Y010425; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:00:31 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id AC801666FD; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:31:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Barry OReilly's message of "Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:00:06 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4920=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9378 : core <4920> : inlines <759> : streams <1165012> : uri <1738093> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:88223 Archived-At: > I think the algorithm would be simpler to make correct if adjustments > are applied forward chronologically rather than backwards. That is, > the algorithm keeps a list of undo-deltas that grows as the algorithm > iterates backwards through undo history. As it does so, the positions > are adjusted chronologically forward through the undo-deltas. This > approach is O(N**2), as the current algorithm also is, but the bright > side is the proposed algorithm lends itself to short circuiting better > than the current. I believe you. I'm not familiar with the way it currently works. > Let me know if you have other ideas and I'll prepare a patch. While looking at that code, can you make that "make-selective-list" skip redo entries (depending on undo-no-redo, obviously), using the undo-equiv-table? Stefan