From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Uninformative comment in files.el Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <475EF93E.3060203@ig.com.br> <475F0992.2030307@gmx.at> <475F45EB.2070704@ig.com.br> <476084A9.4010800@ig.com.br> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1198266663 14305 80.91.229.12 (21 Dec 2007 19:51:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:51:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 21 20:51:15 2007 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 4.50) id 1J5ntf-0006jg-KU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:51:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5ntL-0008Nf-Ui for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:50:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J5nro-0006Ru-Ru for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:08 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J5nrn-0006Pr-2Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:08 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5nrm-0006PU-OF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:06 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J5nrm-00041k-9v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:06 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J5nrk-0006gc-Hc; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:04 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:54:45 -0500) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:85358 Archived-At: But then please remove the useless paraphrasing comment and add a useful comment that explains why overlays should be removed. And why the mark should also be manipulated. Sure. The issue with the mark is basically the same: it often won't point at the right place any more. But maybe that's not as important as it is with overlays, since there's always only one mark. So if the mark is not at the right place, you can ignore it. Thus, I guess it is better not to alter anything about the mark.