Re: MY window tree!

["Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

martin rudalics wrote:
>  > I have tried to add the hooks on reasonable places. I would be glad for
>  > some comments on that.
> 
> `winsav-after-get' and `winsav-after-put' should be defvard and the args
> documented.  I'd also rename them to `before-winsav-functions' and
> `after-winsav-functions' (compare `before-revert-hook' and
> `after-revert-hook'), Juanma knows the naming conventions better.

Thanks. I think hooks ending in "-hook" by convention is called with no 
arguments. "-hooks" seems good here. I like to have the library name in 
the beginning of the name.

I have changed the names and defvared them.


> But I notice that you still make overlays.  I thought we convinced you
> they are not needed.  Believe me: The only case you should care about is
> when an overlay has a 'window property referencing a window that has an
> ovlwin-window association.  Investigating _all_ overlays in _all_ live
> buffers is overkill and would make this very slow.


No, you have not convinced me - I do not believe we have disagreed ;-)

In the normal use case no overlays should be made (see the beginning of 
the file). However I think my check for if the old window is still a 
window on a frame was wrong. I checked only window-live-p. I have added 
a check of window-frame now.

But I do not understand what you and Juanma tries to say. Is there 
perhaps another way to find the overlays than using overlays-in? I am 
not aware of any other way, but perhaps you are?

If not so, then do I not have to look at all overlays in all buffers? I 
do not know if this is actually a problem, but if it is then it is a 
good point in favor for a solution in C. However I do not expect the 
functions in winsav.el to be called very frequently.