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#36190: 27.0.50; `put-text-property' etc. with buffer argument calls current buffer's `after-change-functions' Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:59:05 +0300 Message-ID: <83lfy0td86.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h88tzbly.fsf@gnu.org> <835zp9z4oj.fsf@gnu.org> <83y325xnk0.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfy4y5wm.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="187157"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 36190@debbugs.gnu.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 17 18:38:32 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 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hcueO-000mXa-A6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:38:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49250 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hcueM-0001p9-Oy for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:38:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43625) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu3K-0003oB-9F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:00:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu3F-0004fw-AC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:00:12 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57866) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu39-0004bM-4F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu38-0003FO-W6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:00:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 36190 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 36190-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B36190.156078714412358 (code B ref 36190); Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:00:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 36190) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jun 2019 15:59:04 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43177 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu2B-0003DG-PH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:59:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34428) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu29-0003Ci-VS for 36190@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:59:02 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:51318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu24-0003cg-Er; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:58:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4298 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hcu22-0003AT-Q7; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:58:55 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Pip Cet on Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:38:38 +0000) 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:160736 Archived-At: > From: Pip Cet > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:38:38 +0000 > Cc: 36190@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Switching buffers means rebinding values of all the buffer-local > > variables, of which there could be quite a few. Or am I missing > > something? > > I just don't see how the requirement to switch buffers for modifying > text properties is so different, performance-wise, from the case of > modifying buffer text; in the latter case, we simply accept we can do > so only for the current buffer. It isn't different. It's just that (a) modifying another buffer's text is relatively rare, and (b) this is one more such switch. > In any case, the current code already switches buffers, it's just a > question of doing so twice rather than once. Yes. IOW, we get hit by that one more time. > > > > I wish we had a better alternative. > > > > > > (Such as not calling regular modification hooks for text property changes?) > > > > I thought about that, but I don't think this would be acceptable. > > It's certainly not something to be done on the spur of the moment, but > it is something I feel Emacs did wrongly, perhaps because XEmacs did > things differently, if I understand correctly. I'm not sure I'm aware > of even a single place where text properties are used for something > that's integrally part of buffer text. I don't think this i a part of the problem: applications that don't want the side effects of text properties can use overlays instead. > when someone has time to test things properly, is to rewrite all > buffer-modifying functions to look like this: > > Lisp_Object hooks = run_before_change_hooks (...); > modify_buffer (); > run_after_change_hooks (hooks, ...); I think that'd be a welcome refactoring, if indeed this paradigm doesn't break in some subtle use case (Emacs internals are frequently like that). > > struct buffer *b; > > if (NILP (object)) > > { > > XSETBUFFER (object, current_buffer); > > b = NULL; > > } > > else if (BUFFERP (object)) > > b = XBUFFER (object); > > [...] > > signal_after_change (b, ...); > > I find the above much less readable than the current version, I must say. I guess we will have to disagree then, because this is boilerplate C ion Emacs sources. > > > It was out of genuine interest, because passing NULL to implicitly > > > specify a default argument is something that people advocate against, > > > > Not to specify the default, but to indicate that no action is needed > > at all wrt the buffer. It is similar to the last argument to > > 'strtol', for example. > > The `base' argument, you mean? Sorry, meant the penultimate argument, ENDPTR.