From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#32839: 27.0.50; recenter doesn't redisplay Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:08:20 +0300 Message-ID: <83a7nz5xgr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8736txjvkg.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83lg7p8hnf.fsf@gnu.org> <87va6tb8lo.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83k1n895qv.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvmbq2pp.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <835zyr8mn8.fsf@gnu.org> <875zyqwnrb.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83k1n66t0w.fsf@gnu.org> <87k1n3ev6e.fsf@mail.linkov.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1538287634 14289 195.159.176.226 (30 Sep 2018 06:07:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 06:07:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 32839@debbugs.gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 30 08:07:10 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Usn-0003cA-6D for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 08:07:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53862 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uut-0002BN-C0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:09:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52366) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uug-0002B5-RA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:09:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uuc-0000tV-0d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:09:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uub-0000tP-Sp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:09:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uub-0006h4-Kc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:09:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 06:09:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 32839 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 32839-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B32839.153828772325705 (code B ref 32839); Sun, 30 Sep 2018 06:09:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 32839) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2018 06:08:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59357 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g6UuI-0006gW-Vt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:08:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42714) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g6UuH-0006gJ-9D for 32839@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:08:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uu7-0000hj-5C for 32839@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:08:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:60893) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uu6-0000hR-H3; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:08:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1223 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1g6Uu6-0004Ao-4x; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:08:30 -0400 In-reply-to: <87k1n3ev6e.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (message from Juri Linkov on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:32:57 +0300) 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: 208.118.235.43 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:150783 Archived-At: > From: Juri Linkov > Cc: 32839@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 02:32:57 +0300 > > I see that before the recent changes, on a TTY 'C-l' and > all non-interactive calls of 'recenter' cleared the frame, > but now only interactive calls of 'recenter' redraw the frame. More or less, yes. There's still a way to call 'recenter' non-interactively in a way that will cause the frame to be redrawn, but it needs a special arrangement. > OTOH, what I'm trying to achieve here is to allow C-l with a non-nil > argument to refresh the *Messages* buffer when recenter-redisplay is t. That's not C-l's purpose, so IMO you are using the wrong tool for the job. > An additional problem is that when 'recenter-positions' is customized > to not contain the keyword 'middle', then 'recenter-top-bottom' never > uses a nil arg of 'recenter', thus never redraws the frame. Again, it is not recenter-redisplay's purpose to redraw the frame. If you want to redraw the frame, there's a command for that (and much more): redraw-display. There's also a function redraw-frame. > But since redrawing a frame causes flickering, I'm not interested > in setting recenter-redisplay to t. So I could implement more > fundamental changes for this only if you insist. I don't think any changes are necessary, because the functions mentioned all work as intended. I'm not interested in making the complex arrangement we already have even more complex. It is already quite an unholy mess. > However, a minimal change that is needed here is to fix inconsistencies > in the recent changes: the argument name 'redisplay' is confusing - > it implies that it overrides the default value of recenter-redisplay > to force the redisplay. A proper name would be 'interactive'. > There are dozens of commands already that use this naming convention. I don't think I agree. The current name reflects what that argument causes, you just interpret "redisplay" to mean "redraw the frame", which is not an accurate interpretation, since the display engine has its own logic to decide what exactly needs to be redrawn at any particular moment. Renaming the argument as you propose would be a step backwards, since it describes the _purpose_ (as opposed to _effect_) of that argument, and that could easily change with further development, and is not accurate even with the current code.