From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 18:28:49 +0000 Message-ID: <20170204182848.GD2047@acm> References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <20170203161913.GA2250@acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486232963 20656 195.159.176.226 (4 Feb 2017 18:29:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 18:29:23 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 04 19:29:18 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ca55J-00051D-AH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:29:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40519 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca55L-0004A4-NN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 13:29:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54449) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca55F-00049z-Qh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 13:29:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca55C-0003FE-N5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 13:29:13 -0500 Original-Received: from ocolin.muc.de ([193.149.48.4]:10295 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca55C-0003Eu-CA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 13:29:10 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 39213 invoked by uid 3782); 4 Feb 2017 18:29:08 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FC46ADF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.196.106.223]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:29:07 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 8510 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Feb 2017 18:28:49 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.4 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:211965 Archived-At: Hello Stefan. On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 13:18:56 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Instead, why don't you criticise comment-cache in a constructive > > fashion? Such as by pointing out potential problems it might cause. > Don't be disingenous: we've been through that several times already. Yes we have, but no potential problems comment-cache might cause have been identified. There's been generalized abstract philosophy on why comment-cache is supposedly bad, but no real problems. Nothing which would cause Emacs to malfunction. The fact is, comment-cache enables the proper functioning of backward_comment. The current master and the "alternative patch" are both buggy. > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).