From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:58:04 -0700 Message-ID: <63437198-6AD4-4505-B442-29BC588C2912@dancol.org> References: <20160811112951.GA2154@acm.fritz.box> <7e1478b6-cf00-fcbf-8c24-43bdaa57e2b6@dancol.org> <415d1cca-f32c-624e-a4be-9aadcf8a0f17@dancol.org> <83inujbpek.fsf@gnu.org> <20160830171222.GA6672@acm.fritz.box> <5857ab7e-e85c-c6ae-ba1a-b1337ae57f2c@dancol.org> <83fupmm9ul.fsf@gnu.org> <67e1e007-c944-b91e-6c4b-b06b51beddc1@dancol.org> <83bn0am91r.fsf@gnu.org> <83a8fum6wv.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472583516 17096 195.159.176.226 (30 Aug 2016 18:58:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:58:36 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android Cc: acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 30 20:58:32 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1beoEu-0003kg-Lj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:58:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50789 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beoEs-00010l-7t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:58:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48259) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beoEl-0000va-47 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:58:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beoEi-0005df-W8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:58:18 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:54900) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beoEe-0005bR-JA; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:58:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Message-ID:CC:To:Date:From:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To; bh=MTMZVcbSJet8CzD5LTKhvpdnK5vwpxIh/5cHz3bRyQA=; b=OIMwFEFlGdxsCA7pZrjI4e+aQQhyseu+Bq5c4AFLszibfcKTv/t+RuksE0GfLd12R0DDTFxB5Nyome9Uom4MFCiThXrM7W0uNiCzjUgxo5XP3y0hwmz8oLES3dXE9ygGRqCUV9sRL0tCyUrHStd1lhOAKcihAkFgy7IHF843NhjCJwExvXSKRqtGDAj/jnhUmqcl9i3M955WWR92AuusEXO5Lek2242xX+ICtmzprCu+OXX7+lNw+eeD5BguEZz9jjeg8qCWuwcH3Sq0HtynJyHiA99tAgnnQ/LmyVKG8Hdg0qScXAJMocBHg4dnNmeZx+HsDZgV1Wu5sXRIOiNJbA==; Original-Received: from [73.109.62.216] (helo=[10.228.92.212]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1beoEc-0007sB-PH; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:58:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: <83a8fum6wv.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206998 Archived-At: On August 30, 2016 11:46:24 AM PDT, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: Daniel Colascione >> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:04:07 -0700 >> >> > You misunderstand what Stefan says. He says not calling the >> > before-change hook _at_all_ is a bug. Not calling it for every >chunk >> > of deleted text is not necessarily a bug, if there's a previous >less >> > fine-grained call to the hook. And that's what the text above >> > conveys: that note every chunk to be deleted will have its own call >to >> > a hook. >> >> So we're in agreement? True or false: b-c-f ought to be a >conservative >> bound on subsequent a-c-f calls. > >Of course we are in agreement, about the essence. Your text saus the >same as mine, except that I don't find "conservative bound" to be more >helpful than what I wrote, quite the contrary. Your text is silent on the relationship between the regions given to b-c-f and the ones given to b-c-f. I don't understand what's so hard to see. My proposed change tightens the contract between the Emacs core and developers and does it in a way that doesn't impose additional requirements on the current implementation. > >> >> I strongly disagree. b-c-f is a perfectly good way to invalidate >caches. >> > >> > So the readers need to know they cannot rely on that. >> >> Why shouldn't they be able to rely on that? What *should* they use to > >> invalidate caches? Your position is not very clear to me. > >Stefan described the alternatives up-thread. Those alternatives are all incredibly awkward