Re: call-process and incremental display of output

[John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com>]

Ping.  Not sure if my previous email was lost in the ether.  FWIW, I am
still using that patch and didn't run into any issues.  It works as I
expected, i.e. when point is at eob, new text is inserted before the
point.

John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com> writes:

> FYI, I have been using this patch without any noticeable issues.  Not
> sure if we should merge it.
>
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:
>
>>> Sounds good.  I'll make the change locally and test it for a month or
>>> two and report back.
>>
>> FWIW, I'm running with the following change now:
>>
>>     diff --git a/src/editfns.c b/src/editfns.c
>>     index e995b38a44..db95a8a20a 100644
>>     --- a/src/editfns.c
>>     +++ b/src/editfns.c
>>     @@ -782,6 +782,12 @@ save_excursion_save (union specbinding *pdl)
>>      {
>>        eassert (pdl->unwind_excursion.kind == SPECPDL_UNWIND_EXCURSION);
>>        pdl->unwind_excursion.marker = Fpoint_marker ();
>>     +  /* Suggested by John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com> in the "call-process and
>>     +   * incremental display of output" thread of help-gnu-emacs.
>>     +   * This matches the manually-created behavior of compile.el's process filter
>>     +   * and probably others like comint as well.  */
>>     +  XMARKER (pdl->unwind_excursion.marker)->insertion_type
>>     +    = !NILP (Vwindow_point_insertion_type);
>>        /* Selected window if current buffer is shown in it, nil otherwise.  */
>>        pdl->unwind_excursion.window
>>          = (EQ (XWINDOW (selected_window)->contents, Fcurrent_buffer ())
>>
>> I haven't double checked that it does what I think it does, to be
>> honest, but at least after a mere 48h of normal use I haven't noticed
>> anything weird yet.
>>
>>
>>         Stefan