From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not? Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:58:03 +0200 Message-ID: <8336d9wwac.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20191221172324.GA8692@ACM> <83k16pzgzu.fsf@gnu.org> <20191221214751.GB8692@ACM> <83sglcxl1q.fsf@gnu.org> <20191224094724.GA3992@ACM> <20191224125111.GC3992@ACM> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="227587"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 24 16:58:26 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ijmZl-000x1T-Uq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:58:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40084 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ijmZk-0005mc-Ao for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:58:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ijmZe-0005mW-Gu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:58:19 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45643) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ijmZe-0003kx-06; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:58:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1947 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ijmZc-0006f4-2v; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:58:17 -0500 In-reply-to: <20191224125111.GC3992@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Tue, 24 Dec 2019 12:51:11 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:243615 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 12:51:11 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > This really ugly, IMO. And the code logic is very hard to follow and > > > verify its correctness, given the various use cases. > > [ .... ] > > > I think the basic idea of my change is sound, but it is suboptimally > > coded. My confusion, I think, arose from the use of the PREPARE > > parameter in the call to insert_1_both, which creates several different > > cases. This is a bad idea. If instead we put in a single call to > > prepare_to_modify_buffer, this should be relatively easy to follow. One > > or two comments would also be helpful. > > I think the following patch is better. What do you think? Frankly, I don't like this, for the reasons I explained in my other message. If you insist on jumping through these hoops just to avoid an extra call to the modification hooks, please write a comment with the detailed description of the logic of these calls and their conditions, and how that ensures the paired calls with no extra calls. Thanks.