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: [PATCH] window.el: Improve mark management Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:11:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87zkdjtr4v.fsf@Apollo.jerryland.fr> <4F1984A2.5060900@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327075904 27656 80.91.229.12 (20 Jan 2012 16:11:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:11:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=E9my?= Compostella , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 20 17:11:40 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RoH3y-0000Cg-Ar for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:11:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48120 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoH3x-0005Fy-Qo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:11:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51638) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoH3v-0005Fq-1K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:11:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoH3p-0001uc-5k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:11:35 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:63879) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RoH3p-0001uW-2A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:11:29 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAM2QGU9MCos2/2dsb2JhbABDrgSBBoFyAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiA+4UYwmBIg8mnCEVg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,543,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="157782422" Original-Received: from 76-10-139-54.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.139.54]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2012 11:11:27 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 730FE5946E; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:11:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4F1984A2.5060900@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:13:38 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 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:147777 Archived-At: >> `push-mark' is wrong if nothing happened between window-state-get and >> window-state-put. >> And the mark & mark-active are buffer-local but not window-local. >> If we window-state-get in a frame which shows the same buffer several >> times, window-state-put would end up pushing the same mark several times. > We could refuse pushing the mark when current and old position are the > same. But obviously pushing the mark from a non-current buffer is not > very reasonable either. > IIRC all I tried was to emulate the behavior for window configurations. > What would you suggest instead? Not save the mark in the first place? I'm not completely sure. The current code doesn't seem that bad since, as you say, it basically reproduces the behavior of window-configurations. So I'd like to first hear of what are concrete cases where the current behavior is a problem. Stefan