From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: flyspell bug Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:34:46 +0200 Message-ID: <85k6gs7461.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <20051002220548.22F6.SLAWOMIR.NOWACZYK.847@student.lu.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1128506155 30880 80.91.229.2 (5 Oct 2005 09:55:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: slawomir.nowaczyk.847@student.lu.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org, "Kim F. Storm" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 05 11:55:52 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EN5y0-0000rF-9H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:53:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EN5xz-0002xu-QO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:53:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EN5g9-00048D-G4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:35:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EN5g5-00045c-Dd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:35:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EN5g4-000458-Hx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:35:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EN5g4-0000rw-Nv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:35:08 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EN5fx-0001tj-53; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:35:01 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 8B3A41C4CD7E; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:34:47 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard M. Stallman's message of "Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:32:52 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:43566 Archived-At: "Richard M. Stallman" writes: > > I think it would be extremely confusing if switching windows to look > > around in another buffer were likely to run some Lisp code. > > How would you notice if flyspell did some "behind the scenes" > dictionary setup ? > > It might cause a lot of trouble if it had a bug of some kind, or if > it did things with processes at a time you did not expect. > > Anyway, my intuition, based on many years of programming, says that > it is a bad idea for switching buffers to run a hook. Switching windows to look around in another buffer certainly can run hooks right now. We have pre-command-hook, post-command-hook, we have focus events and of course we have the "display" property which can run Lisp code, and which will get triggered upon redisplay. All of those however are connected with windows and the user interface and the current _window_. The current _buffer_ is something which is not visible and which can be switched around from C. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum