From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it safe to use the combine-after-change-calls like this? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 14:28:08 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="89155"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 17 20:28:32 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hGpIN-000N3b-Ow for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:28:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57797 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hGpIM-00081Q-Lw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 14:28:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53781) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hGpIC-00080Y-IC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 14:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hGpIB-00050a-PQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 14:28:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=39718 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hGpIB-000505-Ed for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 14:28:19 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hGpI5-000Mhp-7P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:28:13 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:iM7Qt6TCQWGKGidDpGSRCcCMbRI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:235600 Archived-At: > 1. When multiple-cursors activates, set combine-after-change-calls to t > 2. Edit the buffer with multiple active cursors > 3. Before multiple-cursors deactivates, call combine-after-change-execute > and set combine-after-change-calls back to nil. As for the subject's question: I think it might be safe, but it probably won't make a difference: combine-after-change-calls is ignored when before-change-functions is non-nil. Also, regarding interaction with non-CC-mode buffers: you might be able to improve the efficiency of the code by executing the command of the various cursors starting with the one closest to point-max and finishing with the one closest to point-min. For CC-mode buffers I have more trouble guessing if such an ordering would also help, or would hurt, or make no difference. Stefan