From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master e8488bcc9c: Avoid having font locking triggering unnecessary auto-saving Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 20:26:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83a6btxnif.fsf@gnu.org> References: <165191796540.22789.3432288633082546349@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220507100605.B7CA7C051FF@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <83ilqhxr1b.fsf@gnu.org> <83czgpxpmd.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30837"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 07 19:28:14 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nnOE1-0007pF-P1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 07 May 2022 19:28:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55208 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nnOE0-0003hK-9p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 07 May 2022 13:28:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nnOCI-0002cw-Eo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 May 2022 13:26:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42104) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nnOCI-0005UA-49; Sat, 07 May 2022 13:26:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=kBjTVUpNaiPxNvo6OjRssVw9qh/jBjPi5m0vNRf+kYk=; b=MGt2RcgqFtzy VwV380XBMJosl0jCKZJX0NM4hSEqkcwyOwUxhe/ShgiLtj4ITscoEy/UYtwU3ENB33PXMA4Hf+sUe mK8crWEEe6A+YZfKQICmDpKLbm/3Is7G33H5wuqp+15nmG24q5p2RnQ4ftNaLwWCKPa2R54Rt35nS MioclWpJq3Ht+vjSu53S/FG+/919MMEBeSmb1WDSANFEVlNlusQ72glzNjU4xtWKA6ozjeVApm9Tb FRRsAp7LOXI0OpyywYYWJi12/LjHacVYoy0CM6THqIJ3e+x18taMVjTIG3m0xNlqbeCosOOUZocsF 97lQi30Cd2wkND8OTBszOA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3154 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nnOCH-0000wK-KV; Sat, 07 May 2022 13:26:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 07 May 2022 13:21:40 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:289417 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 13:21:40 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii [2022-05-07 19:40:42] wrote: > > Not good enough: auto-saving is a critical feature, and I object to > > changes that could make it less reliable, because it could mean users > > will lose their edits. By contrast, with-silent-modifications is just > > a convenience device, to avoid annoying users with redundant "changes" > > of the buffer. > > Your call. The change to `with-silent-modifications` can similarly > break auto-save, of course. If it does, we will hear about it sooner or later. But code that uses with-silent-modifications is but a fraction of the code that changes buffers in some way. And when some code is inside with-silent-modifications, it is clearly marked, so its effects on auto-save are easily seen and understood. Thus, chances are relatively small that we allow some changes that should cause auto-save be hidden by with-silent-modifications. > > What practical problem do you want to solve by that change in > > auto-save? > > The motivation for the change makes me think that the change I propose > might be closer to the ideal. The ideal for auto-saving is to save any changes, and when in doubt, save anyway.