From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#3038: 23.0.91; after-change-functions and indirect buffers Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:08:15 -0500 Message-ID: <6xzjz12gz4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1361239752 9637 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2013 02:09:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:09:12 +0000 (UTC) To: 3038@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 19 03:09:34 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U7ce7-0006Xy-7C for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:09:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49868 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7cdn-0004B1-0U for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:09:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44545) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7cdg-0004Aj-Ok for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:09:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7cdf-0001PV-TN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:09:00 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:58297) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7cdf-0001PP-Pb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:08:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U7ceg-0007Aw-1p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:10:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:10:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 3038 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 3038-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B3038.136123976227512 (code B ref 3038); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:10:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 3038) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2013 02:09:22 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35525 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U7ce1-00079g-9i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:09:22 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:36591) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U7cdz-00079Z-9v for 3038@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:09:20 -0500 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7ccx-0003MV-PM; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:08:15 -0500 X-Spook: Abu Ghraib TWA CDMA threat Reno Blowfish bomb Taiwan X-Ran: 6)52:kbX_Jsl8.#'Dm.}:>!yr$Xx_jd{!`jVK#k,AF!jFCH4)VTw!KvKe22FSb(Ck%'@vs X-Hue: blue X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:12:54 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:71507 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman wrote: > I got this from Eric Ludlam. There seem to be a problem with > after-change-functions and indirect buffers. To me this looks like a > bug: > > "Yes, I use after-change-functions. ... > > If you edit the base buffer, these functions don't get run in the > indirect buffer, but if you edit the indirect buffer, they do get run, > but not in the base buffer." It doesn't look like a bug to me. You'll have to explicitly check for indirect buffers if that matter to you.