From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stuart D. Herring" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [EPeterson@mcdonaldbradley.com: Kill ring leak in winemacs macros] Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44802.128.165.123.83.1124387522.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> References: <34161.128.165.123.83.1123097221.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <42F1208D.1070307@student.lu.se> <34340.128.165.123.83.1123102769.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <40280.128.165.123.83.1124204823.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <43020FDF.6060007@gnu.org> <41237.128.165.123.83.1124209899.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> Reply-To: herring@lanl.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1124387696 1328 80.91.229.2 (18 Aug 2005 17:54:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:54:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 18 19:54:53 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5oai-0004J5-T4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:54:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5oeF-00035s-Kh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:57:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E5odg-0002oi-Dr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E5odc-0002jg-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:57:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5odb-0002gg-P8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:57:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.65.95.54] (helo=mailwasher-b.lanl.gov) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1E5oof-0007mr-89 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:08:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by mailwasher-b.lanl.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id j7IHq629021229 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:52:07 -0600 Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (webmail1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.106]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id j7IHq2iP013074; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:52:02 -0600 Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by webmail1.lanl.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7IHq2g3009600; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:52:02 -0600 Original-Received: (from apache@localhost) by webmail1.lanl.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j7IHq2OK009598; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:52:02 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: webmail1.lanl.gov: apache set sender to herring@lanl.gov using -f Original-Received: from 128.165.123.83 (SquirrelMail authenticated user 196434) by webmail.lanl.gov with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Original-To: "Kevin Rodgers" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:42236 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:42236 > I think you mean it should be checked while defining a macro, as well as > when executing one, because the first time a macro is executed is when > it is defined -- right? The idea is that a macro running without user interaction -- one that may take minutes to run (repeatedly) -- shouldn't interact with the window system clipboard because the user may be doing so concurrently. I think it's more than a bit strange to use the system clipboard (presumably using windows other than Emacs) while defining a keyboard macro that itself uses kill-ring commands, since the interaction with the window system (and/or other applications) can't be included in the macro. In other words, it doesn't make much sense to define a macro while you're copying text between windows. It does make sense to run a macro while you're copying text, and the two operations shouldn't interfere. Moreover, while defining a macro the user is in control and the clipboard is thus in control; while running a macro there's no such connection. So I think that doing this separation during macro execution is sufficient. > > One point, remains, though: Richard said he wanted the kill-ring > > re-synchronized with the external world at the end of a keyboard macro > > that desynched them; I guess that would have to go in > execute-kbd-macro. > > But what should happen if both Emacs and the window system have new > text > > at that point (where no ordering exists between them)? > > Where did he say that? http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-08/msg00108.html Jason Rumney made a reasonable suggestion in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-08/msg00778.html, but I'd like to hear Richard's answer to the question (if he has a preference), since he raised the issue. Davis Herring -- This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during shipping.