From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master e8488bcc9c: Avoid having font locking triggering unnecessary auto-saving Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 09:19:06 -0400 Message-ID: References: <165191796540.22789.3432288633082546349@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220507100605.B7CA7C051FF@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87fsli7uhf.fsf@gnus.org> <87bkw67rru.fsf@gnus.org> <8735hi7r7k.fsf@gnus.org> <87ilqe4roc.fsf@gnus.org> <83levau0r4.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ue3b9g.fsf@gnus.org> <87mtfq38r3.fsf@gnus.org> <87k0aunohy.fsf@gnus.org> <87wnetk3uz.fsf@gnus.org> <87tu9wcnzt.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27516"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed May 11 15:20:42 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nomGf-0006tg-Ms for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 11 May 2022 15:20:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40392 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nomGe-0004UB-8R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 11 May 2022 09:20:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nomFG-0003Oh-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2022 09:19:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:64535) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nomFD-0002Wr-GQ; Wed, 11 May 2022 09:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6844C1002CB; Wed, 11 May 2022 09:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D43AF10010F; Wed, 11 May 2022 09:19:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1652275147; bh=NX775btfLfc6wl6pn8o/V1lIk+B8HqdLdZQ33/lxU3o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=isExr38n3t70viUbT0VKJTlnAU4+qP5+mIsDd7Hi8RVVsHX9dc1baFdNgLrm6ol36 3feVIeW60pIjkHBjuG5kpcKvpWhMIMSVTONAiVsscw88q4WkL4SU2kQbnoQfM05X6V T0qfYo9WqIwbPOOpOVyr/MvmAbpdQFDZL5UT8RlALbmJRor788ePF+BAtDUcyWwzHc +Jf8v1tvJtWIazJM6RBo2xx9DnnJknub3CXVJ1OVJ6DeAXUTGLwyLix25e2JomUfwc 7DKwcSbZVih/hXOE65OWnQIdwzri8dZGIzVtTQLV4e5FGPvHnOQ0NjFUCArstKeJ18 FJn8qubQKHHmA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.221.51]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6C58120255; Wed, 11 May 2022 09:19:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87tu9wcnzt.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Wed, 11 May 2022 13:22:46 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:289633 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen [2022-05-11 13:22:46] wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: >>> I'm actually not quite sure what the semantics should be if the buffer >>> is buffer-modified-p => nil and we're called with >>> (restore-buffer-modified-p 'autosaved)... >> >> (restore-buffer-modified-p 'autosaved) can be done by doing >> the same as what happens if you do (restore-buffer-modified-p >> 'autosaved) and then you wait for auto-save to kick in, no? > > Uhm... I don't follow. If somebody does > (restore-buffer-modified-p 'autosaved), then that buffer won't be > autosaved... (Well, until the user modifies the buffer.) I'm saying that there should be no difficulty making (restore-buffer-modified-p 'autosaved) do the right thing since (restore-buffer-modified-p t) followed by auto-saving gives us the resulting state (of _MODIFF vars) we want: we just need to mimic the behavior of that sequence of calls (but without performing the auto-save itself, of course). Stefan