From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Problems with syntax-ppss Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:29:48 +0200 Message-ID: <47F6658C.2010703@gmail.com> References: <20080404172627.GB4804@muc.de> 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 1207330253 15655 80.91.229.12 (4 Apr 2008 17:30:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:30:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 04 19:31:25 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 1Jhpkn-0001r9-L1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:31:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JhpkA-0008Na-Qm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:30:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jhpjf-00085m-38 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:29:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jhpjd-000844-Ev for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:29:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jhpjd-00083t-Aq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:29:53 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jhpjc-0007JM-TS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:29:53 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-150-27.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.150.27]:64715 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Jhpjb-0000eT-6W; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:29:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <20080404172627.GB4804@muc.de> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080404-0, 2008-04-04), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.150.27 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Jhpjb-0000eT-6W. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1Jhpjb-0000eT-6W 7ce7e64e16dfd69cbcde4383875662a5 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:94359 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hi, Emacs! > > I've just encountered a rather knotty problem in CC Mode for which > syntax-ppss ought to be a solution; I need to find out, RAPIDLY, whether > a particular buffer position is inside a string or comment. > Unfortunately (for me), ...... > > syntax-ppss does it's parsing from (point-min), not from BOB. > > So if the buffer is currently narrowed, this function will return an > meaningless value for the envisaged use. > > But if I widen the buffer first, what happens to syntax-ppss's cache? > Is this just discarded, or are perhaps two caches maintained (one from > BOB, the other from the current (or most recent) (point-min)? I believe nothing happens to the cache. The cache is just a list of position + state. There is no reason to change this when widening the buffer. The cache is flushed in before-change-hook. All entries after first changed position are removed. > Advice, please! > > Forgive me at this point for not reading the fine source code - it's > over 150 lines and looks rather forbidding. > > It would be nice if the the Elisp manual could be more explicit on such > points. (Hey, tell me how it is, and I'll expand the manual!) > > I think the doc-string for the function is inadequate - it fails to > state that parsing starts at (point-min) rather than BOB. > > Thanks in advance! >