From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35464: [PATCH] Refactor update_window_begin and update_window_end hooks Date: Sat, 04 May 2019 11:45:30 +0300 Message-ID: <834l6amwut.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k1ffnnn2.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9yyt6xp.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhoanfh3.fsf@gmail.com> <83pnp6t1da.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftpwktri.fsf@gmail.com> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="122218"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 35464@debbugs.gnu.org To: Alex Gramiak Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 04 10:47:12 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqK7-000Vex-TP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 10:47:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53503 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqK6-0000xV-Tt for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:47:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45369) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqJz-0000xP-7T for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:47:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqJy-000619-Ci for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:47:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36805) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqJy-000615-7c for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:47:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqJy-0000eG-20 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:47:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 04 May 2019 08:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35464 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 35464-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35464.15569595632422 (code B ref 35464); Sat, 04 May 2019 08:47:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35464) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 May 2019 08:46:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50349 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqJ1-0000d0-7C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:46:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58844) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqIz-0000cM-3c for 35464@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:46:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqIk-0005Ed-Gn; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3977 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hMqIk-0003Mg-2Q; Sat, 04 May 2019 04:45:46 -0400 In-reply-to: <87ftpwktri.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Alex Gramiak on Thu, 02 May 2019 23:10:41 -0600) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:158732 Archived-At: > From: Alex Gramiak > Cc: 35464@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 23:10:41 -0600 > > I have another change that I don't think is worth a new bug report, > which is refactoring scroll_run_hook in a similar way. Is it okay to > apply it? I'm not sure this is a change for the best. scroll_run is already a frame-specific method; just because its 3 implementations are similar in some of their parts doesn't yet mean _all_ possible implementations will be that way. Suppose the NS implementation needs to change for some reason, or the TTY case needs to use this -- what do we do then? move the code back to *term.[cm]? The change also splits the code's logic into 2 parts in 2 different places, another minus in my book. This also adds an ifdef where currently there is none, which is an additional small disadvantage. Bottom line: I think this does not have enough significant advantages to change the current code. Thanks.