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: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 20:17:44 +0200 Message-ID: <83ftgtg43b.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20191221172324.GA8692@ACM> <83k16pzgzu.fsf@gnu.org> <20191221214751.GB8692@ACM> <83sglcxl1q.fsf@gnu.org> <20191224094724.GA3992@ACM> <837e2lwws9.fsf@gnu.org> <20191229133436.GA10699@ACM> <83eewhhqri.fsf@gnu.org> <20200104224730.GB4009@ACM> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="236563"; 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 Sun Jan 05 19:18:22 2020 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 1ioATm-000zN6-Gx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 19:18:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44180 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ioATk-0005XC-GI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 13:18:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40219) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ioAT6-0004t0-PO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 13:17:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40451) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ioAT6-0005KI-75; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 13:17:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4840 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ioAT5-0005Q7-Kw; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 13:17:40 -0500 In-reply-to: <20200104224730.GB4009@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sat, 4 Jan 2020 22:47:30 +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:243988 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 22:47:30 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > OK. I have to say here, I really don't believe such an extensive > commentary is needed here. The code is there, and anybody generally > familiar with our C code would understand it without a great deal of > difficulty, even the mechanism which prevents a spurious second call to > prepare_to_modify_buffer. Surely? If you think this is a waste of effort, you can leave the commentary to me. > For each iteration of the enclosing while (1) loop which > yields data (i.e. nread > 0), before- and > after-change-functions are each invoked exactly once. > This is done directly from the current function only, by > calling prepare_to_modify_buffer and signal_after_change. > It is never done by directing another function such as > insert_1_both to call them. The last sentence above is inaccurate, since insert_1_both does call prepare_to_modify_buffer. Thanks.