From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 12:34:38 +0100 Message-ID: <87eg52pmb5.fsf@russet.org.uk> References: <20160731121642.GB2205@acm.fritz.box> <83a8gxq288.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9ag3j8c.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87pooqcolw.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87wpiwxgvy.fsf@russet.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472816150 11020 195.159.176.226 (2 Sep 2016 11:35:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:35:50 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 02 13:35:43 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 1bfml1-0001p7-Hp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:35:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41564 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfmkz-0002ea-8b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 07:35:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfmks-0002eA-Hz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 07:35:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfmko-0008Cu-C7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 07:35:29 -0400 Original-Received: from cloud103.planethippo.com ([31.216.48.48]:58719) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfmko-00084k-3C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 07:35:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=russet.org.uk; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=yGzFzy8ydxLELD76NsIsgxiQXI3VZflMMsy6jGqquTo=; b=lQGWLSZzXDMP1cKDzpiEEfy6Wu 9A50JxxCNklVY7Tkn4B/akI3adQM7xfDIcPvuKjQ/aVd6Ko6uk9M8Fsc7lzNhAGnm3/YZHbh+r0M3 eiy47tHvmwT2X5UE4woYe4l6W0+yIO38mXrQuy+LQ9glIDs0tnOfE66pN8wTk4mobyC+E048rH02P jqv8TFFMZoVMIRebcUbaAp5WJ3a0zaKSkHi77Z9LLMeQAOv1wULVHS9JryitGGW728nxryQDHXWgo 2cOK5MQwXtzoWCQjdmzQLHoafAf1G+gm7ObNys+SObOIuJJaxksGCu16Q6HgOa9b7KQPlGrvs5/R6 6OvY4+TA==; Original-Received: from janus-nat-128-240-225-60.ncl.ac.uk ([128.240.225.60]:34052 helo=russet.org.uk) by cloud103.planethippo.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from ) id 1bfmk2-0008wN-OK; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 12:34:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 01 Sep 2016 09:33:43 -0400") X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cloud103.planethippo.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gnu.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - russet.org.uk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cloud103.planethippo.com: authenticated_id: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk X-Authenticated-Sender: cloud103.planethippo.com: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 31.216.48.48 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:207119 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Okay, yes, I understand now, and yes, this should be conservative, in >> the sense that it works for all changes, I guess. We are making the >> assumption here that "start" is always consistent between b-c-f and >> a-c-f, > > No, we don't make such an assumption either. The assumption we make is > that the region passed to a-c-f is within the region passed to b-c-f > (i.e. is tighter). Let me rephrase. Can I make the assumption that start is consistent? If not I need to check to see whether they are inconsistent. I'm testing the code out at the moment. My test cases work anyway, but it will take more use in practice until I am confident. Phil