From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: disabling undo boundaries Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87fv746rd5.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87617zl4kh.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87h9rjhy8w.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87oalqrgm7.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87ioby3tdy.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87y4kth5ps.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87sib0a3jr.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <871tiiowjw.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1431713391 25280 80.91.229.3 (15 May 2015 18:09:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 18:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel devel To: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 15 20:09:42 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YtK3J-0006KI-BA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 May 2015 20:09:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60841 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YtK3I-0006YJ-Mm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:09:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53349) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YtK36-0006YE-2g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:09:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YtK31-0002X2-Tl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:09:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mercure.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.24.67]:56318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YtK31-0002Wp-JR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:09:23 -0400 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5514485FE7; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from lechon.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B711E5B8D; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by lechon.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3E851B409F; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:08:56 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <871tiiowjw.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> (Phillip Lord's message of "Fri, 15 May 2015 13:27:31 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-2.82, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -2.82, MC_TSTLAST 0.00) X-DIRO-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 132.204.24.67 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:186516 Archived-At: > That doesn't really make sense to me. Say I am editing a file in this > buffer while compiling something in that buffer. Why would I want an > update in the compilation buffer to force an undo-boundary in this buffer? It probably won't make any difference in "this buffer" because the process filter will be run *between* commands (at which point the read-eval command loop already inserts undo-boundaries anyway). The difference is in the compilation buffer where it'll insert undo boundaries every time you run a command in "this buffer". > Sorry to be persistant about this, but at the moment, changing the code > in undo.c is the only good solution I can see to my problem. It would be > different if explicitally called and automatic boundaries were > distinguishable, but they aren't. We could make them distinguishable, OTOH (e.g. using a (weak) hash-table where we insert every explicitly added undo-boundary). Stefan