Re: master 69521ffcb0: Clarify the doc string of 'with-buffer-unmodified-if-unchanged'

Re: master 69521ffcb0: Clarify the doc string of 'with-buffer-unmodified-if-unchanged'

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> +Note that only changes in the raw byte sequence of the buffer text,
> +as stored in the internal representation, are monitored for the
> +purpose of detecting the lack of changes in buffer text.  Any other
> +changes that are normally perceived as \"buffer modifications\", such
> +as changes in text properties, `buffer-file-coding-system', buffer
> +multibytenes, etc. -- will still cause the buffer to become modified."

This is pretty unclear -- the point is that if BODY does any of those
"buffer modifications", the buffer will won't be marked as modified.
This seems to say the opposite.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: master 69521ffcb0: Clarify the doc string of 'with-buffer-unmodified-if-unchanged'

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 11:10:05 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > +Note that only changes in the raw byte sequence of the buffer text,
> > +as stored in the internal representation, are monitored for the
> > +purpose of detecting the lack of changes in buffer text.  Any other
> > +changes that are normally perceived as \"buffer modifications\", such
> > +as changes in text properties, `buffer-file-coding-system', buffer
> > +multibytenes, etc. -- will still cause the buffer to become modified."
> 
> This is pretty unclear -- the point is that if BODY does any of those
> "buffer modifications", the buffer will won't be marked as modified.
> This seems to say the opposite.

Which part(s) say the opposite?

Re: master 69521ffcb0: Clarify the doc string of 'with-buffer-unmodified-if-unchanged'

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > +multibytenes, etc. -- will still cause the buffer to become modified."
>> 
>> This is pretty unclear -- the point is that if BODY does any of those
>> "buffer modifications", the buffer will won't be marked as modified.
>> This seems to say the opposite.
>
> Which part(s) say the opposite?

"Become modified" is most easily interpreted as (buffer-modified-p) => t.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: master 69521ffcb0: Clarify the doc string of 'with-buffer-unmodified-if-unchanged'

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 11:54:39 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> > +multibytenes, etc. -- will still cause the buffer to become modified."
> >> 
> >> This is pretty unclear -- the point is that if BODY does any of those
> >> "buffer modifications", the buffer will won't be marked as modified.
> >> This seems to say the opposite.
> >
> > Which part(s) say the opposite?
> 
> "Become modified" is most easily interpreted as (buffer-modified-p) => t.

Ah, yes.  Should be fixed now, thanks.