AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Eli Zaretskii]

In dispextern.h we have:

    enum prop_idx
    {
      AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX,
      FONTIFIED_PROP_IDX,
      FACE_PROP_IDX,
      INVISIBLE_PROP_IDX,
      DISPLAY_PROP_IDX,
      COMPOSITION_PROP_IDX,

      /* Not a property.  Used to indicate changes in overlays.  */
      OVERLAY_PROP_IDX,

      /* Sentinel.  */
      LAST_PROP_IDX
    };

However, no one seems to use AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX.  It looks like a
left-over from the previous implementation of automatic compositions,
which used text properties.

OK to delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX from the enumeration?

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Chong Yidong]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> In dispextern.h we have:
>
>     enum prop_idx
>     {
>       AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX,
>       FONTIFIED_PROP_IDX,
>       FACE_PROP_IDX,
>       INVISIBLE_PROP_IDX,
>       DISPLAY_PROP_IDX,
>       COMPOSITION_PROP_IDX,
>
>       /* Not a property.  Used to indicate changes in overlays.  */
>       OVERLAY_PROP_IDX,
>
>       /* Sentinel.  */
>       LAST_PROP_IDX
>     };
>
> However, no one seems to use AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX.  It looks like a
> left-over from the previous implementation of automatic compositions,
> which used text properties.
>
> OK to delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX from the enumeration?

I'm not sure it's safe.  If you want to do it, please wait till after
the 23.2 release.

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
> Cc: Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:04:48 -0500
> 
> > OK to delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX from the enumeration?
> 
> I'm not sure it's safe.

Did you see any evidence that it might be unsafe, or is that just
general precaution?

Suppose Handa-san tells us that it indeed was introduced for the
previous implementation of automatic compositions and was supposed to
be deleted when we switched to the current implementation -- will you
still want to wait until after v23.2 then?

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <83hbsemx26.fsf@gnu.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> In dispextern.h we have:
>     enum prop_idx
>     {
>       AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX,
[...]

> However, no one seems to use AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX.  It looks like a
> left-over from the previous implementation of automatic compositions,
> which used text properties.

Right.  The current Emacs never put `auto-composed' property now.

> OK to delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX from the enumeration?

I think so.

In article <87skbyii7j.fsf@stupidchicken.com>, Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:

> I'm not sure it's safe.  If you want to do it, please wait till after
> the 23.2 release.

If deleting it causes a problem, it means that we have some
bug that is currently hidden but will be revealed by unknown
condition.   It is better to find out such a bug if any.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:13:18 +0900
> 
> In article <83hbsemx26.fsf@gnu.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > In dispextern.h we have:
> >     enum prop_idx
> >     {
> >       AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX,
> [...]
> 
> > However, no one seems to use AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX.  It looks like a
> > left-over from the previous implementation of automatic compositions,
> > which used text properties.
> 
> Right.  The current Emacs never put `auto-composed' property now.
> 
> > OK to delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX from the enumeration?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> In article <87skbyii7j.fsf@stupidchicken.com>, Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:
> 
> > I'm not sure it's safe.  If you want to do it, please wait till after
> > the 23.2 release.
> 
> If deleting it causes a problem, it means that we have some
> bug that is currently hidden but will be revealed by unknown
> condition.   It is better to find out such a bug if any.

Yidong, do you still want to wait with this until after v23.2, or can
I go ahead and delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX?

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Chong Yidong]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Yidong, do you still want to wait with this until after v23.2, or can
> I go ahead and delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX?

If you really want to do it, I won't insist, even though the benefit
seems minimal.

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
> Cc: Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:55:49 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Yidong, do you still want to wait with this until after v23.2, or can
> > I go ahead and delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX?
> 
> If you really want to do it, I won't insist, even though the benefit
> seems minimal.

I don't insist, either.  The only "benefit" is that I could otherwise
forget about this nit.

I could submit a bug instead, if you prefer that.

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > Yidong, do you still want to wait with this until after v23.2, or can
>> > I go ahead and delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX?
>> 
>> If you really want to do it, I won't insist, even though the benefit
>> seems minimal.

> I don't insist, either.  The only "benefit" is that I could otherwise
> forget about this nit.

> I could submit a bug instead, if you prefer that.

Please just remove it.  It's 100% unused, there's no risk of it
introducing bugs.


        Stefan

Re: AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX unused?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> Cc: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org
> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:58 -0500
> 
> >> > Yidong, do you still want to wait with this until after v23.2, or can
> >> > I go ahead and delete AUTO_COMPOSED_PROP_IDX?
> >> 
> >> If you really want to do it, I won't insist, even though the benefit
> >> seems minimal.
> 
> > I don't insist, either.  The only "benefit" is that I could otherwise
> > forget about this nit.
> 
> > I could submit a bug instead, if you prefer that.
> 
> Please just remove it.  It's 100% unused, there's no risk of it
> introducing bugs.

Done.