From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 22:04:45 +0300 Message-ID: <838tw7hyk2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160802101549.GA2328@acm.fritz.box> <83r3a7md69.fsf@gnu.org> <20160802165545.GD2328@acm.fritz.box> <83fuqnm6og.fsf@gnu.org> <83eg67m3aq.fsf@gnu.org> <20160808143614.GA7208@acm.fritz.box> <83mvkni7xf.fsf@gnu.org> <20160808165449.GB7208@acm.fritz.box> <83d1lji3ih.fsf@gnu.org> <20160808184223.GC7208@acm.fritz.box> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1470683128 21831 195.159.176.226 (8 Aug 2016 19:05:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:05:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, rcopley@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 08 21:05:23 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 1bWprX-0005Y3-MB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 21:05:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59267 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWprU-00088q-HE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:05:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38765) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWprO-00088Y-JR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:05:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWprK-0004gb-Dd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:05:13 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:36631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWprK-0004ft-B4; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:05:10 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4938 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bWprB-00044t-Pc; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:05:02 -0400 In-reply-to: <20160808184223.GC7208@acm.fritz.box> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:42:23 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:206494 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:42:23 +0000 > Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, rcopley@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > So, if worse comes to worst, you could trigger such a complete scan > > after revert-buffer, e.g. in a specialized revert-buffer-function. > > Why would that be bad? Not bad, just potentially expensive for large buffers. But if that's "good enough", I don't really mind. However, the patch you show below doesn't implement this, does it?