From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:01:00 +0200 Message-ID: <44C1E94C.5040806@gmx.at> References: <44C09AA3.8060600@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1153638760 4931 80.91.229.2 (23 Jul 2006 07:12:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 23 09:12:38 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4Y8R-0001ko-1U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:12:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4Y8Q-0000hy-GD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:12:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G4Y87-0000cA-C1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:11:59 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G4Y84-0000ZX-MX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:11:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4Y84-0000ZI-Hv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:11:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [213.165.64.21] (helo=mail.gmx.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G4Y8s-0004h6-F1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:12:46 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2006 09:25:14 -0000 Original-Received: from N825P022.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.47.22]) [62.47.47.22] by mail.gmx.net (mp043) with SMTP; 22 Jul 2006 11:25:14 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:57494 Archived-At: > 1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-tick' always > (invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-tick'? > > I do not understand "imply" in this context. Sorry. I was thinking about a function `buffer-chars-modified-p' and intended to ask the following question: 1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-p' always (invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-p'? Anyway, it's implied by the following. > > With > other words, suppose we have a thing called CHAR_MODIFF: Would we have > to support the invariant > > MODIFF >= CHAR_MODIFF >= SAVE_MODIFF > > Yes, that is the idea. But now I'm in doubt whether I reasoned correctly. It would mean that when I save a buffer and thusly update save_modiff I'd have to update char_modiff as well to preserve that invariant. As a consequence, clients like imenu would conclude that an insertion/deletion occurred although, in fact, the buffer was only saved.