From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Edebug corrupting point in buffers; we need buffer-point and
 set-buffer-point, perhaps.
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2022 09:06:04 +0200
Message-ID: <83tu3jcfxf.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <Y1+00x9hKKFpAVO6@ACM> <jwv4jvj6hce.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
 <83h6zjeue4.fsf@gnu.org> <jwviljz1tap.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="23720"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 08:07:04 2022
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
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 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1oplMW-00062c-C6
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 08:07:04 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>)
	id 1oplLq-0002RL-QF; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 03:06:22 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1oplLp-0002Qv-Qc
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 03:06:21 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1oplLo-0000O9-DO; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 03:06:20 -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=3f3GmajcTe2jnhUhVqw5S/cLxJ04c23MuykQKqt25gc=; b=CtzNoL2rJNtk
 5AN21d4vhsB62B2NB0z+zFniZiTZOnN9HwenD5OvrwZTRZw33X2QGRH4NCxenFQMjIkW3RqBpAVo9
 N8y7kqzSiYXa+s1q9K/tBRFQlvRYYhvrTMH+nyQBFFQtGotzoHMuOoNm86W9zphRFGl8RF6pephgh
 nOtrRUpKLHhPI5W/3KPqyH24E0yapCmu4XIXFYha8i1VHHjx0Se84oapUeGYWYU72AgQn3Hxff897
 R9BtLy9/57y7jvLErnTh4JrE/RrInysrrztBsrYYu5/jvTIuqR+veCgch1Szlg2GSKVdFAqx/nPmz
 878S2wInYKCw1BCrjkQf9A==;
Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1oplLl-0007eV-Tz; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 03:06:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <jwviljz1tap.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (message from Stefan
 Monnier on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 19:14:26 -0400)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:298908
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/298908>

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: acm@muc.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 19:14:26 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii [2022-10-31 20:10:43] wrote:
> >> Maybe we should try and make sure redisplay itself (rather than, or
> >> in addition, I'm not sure) preserves buffer points?
> >
> > We do try and make sure it does.  There are quite a few places in the
> > code where we jump through many hoops to make sure this is true.
> 
> Hmm... maybe we should investigate exactly why the buffer's point is
> modified in Alan's case.

Yes, we should, I agree.