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) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:46:24 +0300 Message-ID: <83a8fum6wv.fsf@gnu.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472582869 13690 195.159.176.226 (30 Aug 2016 18:47:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 30 20:47:45 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 1beo4V-0002oO-RO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:47:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50753 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beo4T-0004Cl-1p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:47:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44716) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beo3q-0004CS-E6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:47:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beo3n-00034I-5X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:47:02 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59218) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beo3n-00033z-2C; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:46:59 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2017 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1beo3W-0001wM-9X; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:46:57 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Daniel Colascione on Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:04:07 -0700) 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:206993 Archived-At: > 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. > >> 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.