From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug#8219: Effect of deletions on indirect buffers (Bug#8219) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:58:57 -0500 Message-ID: <874o79nzla.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <877hc5bfqy.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <838vwlto85.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299877158 5999 80.91.229.12 (11 Mar 2011 20:59:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8219@debbugs.gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 11 21:59:13 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Py9QV-0000DT-UA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:59:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37770 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Py9QV-0003xD-FW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:59:11 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46053 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Py9QR-0003wD-24 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:59:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Py9QP-0007uG-SY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:59:06 -0500 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.145]:34841) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Py9QP-0007u9-Pg; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:59:05 -0500 Original-Received: from furball (dhcp128036014143.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2BKwv8u031966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:58:57 -0500 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7096F1605F5; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:58:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <838vwlto85.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:07:54 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.145 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.132.50.145 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:137124 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Hence, in the aftermath of a deletion, buffer B's values of PT (and >> BUF_BEGV and BUF_ZV) can be larger than BUF_ZV. > > Isn't that a bug, right there? Why doesn't del_range_2 update the > indirect buffer (B) as well, when deletion removes text so that its PT > becomes invalid? This is not currently easy. We don't keep track of indirect buffers (looping over the buffer list each time we do a deletion would be rather inefficient), so this would need some new members of the buffer struct.