Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 >     1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-tick' always
 >     (invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-tick'?
 >
 > I do not understand "imply" in this context.

Sorry.  I was thinking about a function `buffer-chars-modified-p' and
intended to ask the following question:

1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-p' always
    (invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-p'?

Anyway, it's implied by the following.

 >
 > 								       With
 >     other words, suppose we have a thing called CHAR_MODIFF: Would we have
 >     to support the invariant
 >
 > 		      MODIFF >= CHAR_MODIFF >= SAVE_MODIFF
 >
 > Yes, that is the idea.

But now I'm in doubt whether I reasoned correctly.  It would mean that
when I save a buffer and thusly update save_modiff I'd have to update
char_modiff as well to preserve that invariant.  As a consequence,
clients like imenu would conclude that an insertion/deletion occurred
although, in fact, the buffer was only saved.