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: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:21:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="197741"; 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 Thu Apr 18 14:22:26 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 1hH63e-000pLa-HH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:22:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40784 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH63d-0000J1-Gv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:22:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:32847) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH639-00006C-QS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:21:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH638-0003tF-UI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:21:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=43770 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH638-0003s8-Lg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:21:54 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hH636-000oW8-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:21:52 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mf1MPwgnvqjfuTeb+yrbRCs0b1Y= 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:235617 Archived-At: >> 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. > I don’t understand this well. If you're currently operating (via Iedit or MC) at positions 10, 42 and 347, then I think it's going to be slightly more efficient if Iedit/MC runs your command (e.g. self-insert-command, delete-char, you name it) in the order run at 347 run at 42 run at 10 then if it does it in the order run at 10 run at 42 run at 347 > I see that when iedit-mode is on, it calls after-change-functions on > change around every active cursors for every char inputing. Yes, of course, that's what after-change-functions is for. Stefan