Re: Lisp primitives and their calling of the change hooks

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Hello, Stefan.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 18:42:00 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Implementation flexibility, of course (which apparently Eli doesn't
> >> want to take advantage of very much).
> > What flexibility?

> "Implementation flexibility" here means flexibility in
> implementing primitives.

Which is probably not terribly important.  Few, if any, buffer changing
primitives have been implemented in the last 20 years, and it's
difficult to foresee that any new ones will be written in the next 20
years.

> E.g. not needing to care about "what happens if I get an error after
> I called b-c-f but before I actually modify the buffer"?

So the flexibility you gain by permitting non-balancing of the change
hooks is the ability to write unbalanced change hooks.  Somehow, I'm a
bit underwhelmed.

[ .... ]

>         Stefan

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).