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: /* FIXME: Call signal_after_change! */ in callproc.c. Well, why not? Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20191221172324.GA8692@ACM> <83k16pzgzu.fsf@gnu.org> <20191221214751.GB8692@ACM> <83sglcxl1q.fsf@gnu.org> <20191224094724.GA3992@ACM> <837e2lwws9.fsf@gnu.org> <20191229133436.GA10699@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="130496"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 29 17:24:01 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 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ilbMH-000XoL-1N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:24:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53236 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ilbMF-0007TT-So for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58507) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ilbM9-0007SN-80 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ilbM7-0006zj-Ql for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:27206) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ilbM6-0006vd-GI; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:50 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5005110058D; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:49 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 020F91002FA; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:48 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1577636628; bh=Ua5LTD2GSdGaUtn5adgRShPbZ1a+ZWXzvsWHP03KNiw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=M1aRNeXDpR+1vBFiEf5je0CGg2X1ORPIyP7UCKF25nysdAT1Y9RB/hjnVDkNtyeFW kSz9tBrVBJhR9OPLNnQ1msW38xYtpbIpx1eYfjrI90oUmACTed7ZQZ7q8cP0vPHqFc btlpzfG+vpfzYCWYCVg3nrbWbsZzKP/mOvgZQ9QfNodWbFW6YO+OFaNYeqxXRcEvsp OuR9m40l0wyP/SuXJCW9gERZyFCmHwqqo4mFm77ckzQMkIORh0Nuw9141qUpQMMUSq QoO5gNZW14bOHmtRA7P+LUO8Rpc4BjaLL/YcQu9r49tz/xcGAhxKvzwYmZ36Rt7FHr hMcbhbYv/Tk1A== Original-Received: from pastel (65-110-220-116.cpe.pppoe.ca [65.110.220.116]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA3F7120C46; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:23:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20191229133436.GA10699@ACM> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sun, 29 Dec 2019 13:34:36 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:243746 Archived-At: > Besides, the Elisp manual page "Change Hooks" only describes one > situation for unbalanced calls. This is one large enclosing before- > followed by a sequence of smaller after-s. That's right. And the sequence can be empty. >> Again, I don't see why this could cause any trouble. Inserting an >> empty string is not an outlandish situation, and any modification hook >> must be prepared to (trivially) deal with it. > This may be true, but I wouldn't bet anything on it being true for all > existing hooks. It's probably harmless to run the after change hook for such a non-change, but it should never be necessary. Stefan