From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Redisplay hook Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:52:47 +0300 Message-ID: <83furppi9s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <577814F4.8060500@gmail.com> <8360sns8nj.fsf@gnu.org> <874m86xnf5.fsf@udel.edu> <83r3bap1hr.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467644014 8822 80.91.229.3 (4 Jul 2016 14:53:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:53:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mvoteiza@udel.edu, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 04 16:53:33 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1bK5Fc-0007Oz-S0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 16:53:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48393 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Fc-0007yd-2Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:53:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5FP-0007ut-82 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:53:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5FN-00050Z-2s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56449) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5FM-000506-VQ; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:53:16 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1922 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5FD-0007y3-Jb; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:53:08 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Andreas Schwab on Mon, 04 Jul 2016 09:59:30 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205135 Archived-At: > From: Andreas Schwab > Cc: Mark Oteiza , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 09:59:30 +0200 > > >> Well, pre-redisplay-functions already exists, and it appears to be a hook > >> with equal potential for making trouble. > > > > No, because it runs _before_ redisplay. > > But a post-redisplay hook should not be any more dangerous than a > post-command hook. Like the latter it could just be disabled > automatically if anything went wrong. It's not much more dangerous, by and large, but I think it's slightly more dangerous, because it will most probably run from within the display code, and thus runs the risk of triggering an infinite redisplay loop. By contrast, a post-command hook cannot trigger another post-command hook (AFAIU).