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: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:09:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20190426103139.GA4720@ACM> 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="119509"; 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 Fri Apr 26 14:11:00 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 1hJzgw-000Uut-S0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:10:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46166 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJzgv-0005q2-M1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:10:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38949) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJzfa-0005nz-3G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:09:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJzfZ-0003jC-92 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:09:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=38684 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJzfZ-0003hZ-2F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:09:33 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hJzfV-000TOg-Jk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:8qz6h3SEG84sIqUsjpm9SUaC7aw= 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:235956 Archived-At: >> I don’t understand this well. I see that when iedit-mode is on, it >> calls after-change-functions on change around every active cursors for >> every char inputing. > > One thing which might help in the future is the macro > combine-change-calls, which is a bit like combine-after-change-calls, > but also works when before-change-functions isn't nil. I think in the case of iedit this is problematic, because combine-change-calls can't be used around code which internally depends on those before/after functions (e.g. in the present case, it could misbehave if its behavior depends on the text-properties that are updated via before/after-change-functions, like syntax-table). For comment-combine-change-calls, we think it's OK because we hope that (un)comment-region will not be affected by those stale data, but with iedit there's much less knowledge/control of the range of code that would be run within the combine-change-calls, making it more problematic. Stefan