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: undo bug? Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:52:41 +0200 Message-ID: <47F28479.3030605@gmx.at> References: <47F21FEB.401@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1207101926 17389 80.91.229.12 (2 Apr 2008 02:05:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 02:05:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Katsumi Yamaoka , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 02 04:05:57 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JgsLY-0001l9-Hn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:05:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JgsKw-0005An-3K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:04:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JgsK3-0003y5-8v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:03:31 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JgsK0-0003us-Lw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:03:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JgsK0-0003uE-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:03:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JgsJz-0000f1-Ct for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:03:27 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Apr 2008 18:51:24 -0000 Original-Received: from 88-117-39-224.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [88.117.39.224]) [88.117.39.224] by mail.gmx.net (mp032) with SMTP; 01 Apr 2008 20:51:24 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18HuPZI++oHKPYytsGvz/Ayn01es1YUoBaeJL+y1c wXhqMv5dQMUnID User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:94159 Archived-At: > I'm wondering why we have to use last_point_position. > It seems to be asking for problems because it is delimited by command > processing, whereas the undo records are delimited by undo-boundary: > there is a correlation between the two, but no equivalence. > > I.e. I suggest we introduce last_undo_boundary_pos and use it in place > of last_point_position in undo.c. > It'd be set to PT in Fundo_boundary (which could/should also set > last_undo_buffer). Couldn't we do away with undo-boundaries and always undo until the next recorded position of `point'?