Re: Uninformative comment in files.el

[Yoni Rabkin Katzenell <yoni-r@actcom.com>]

Vinicius Jose Latorre <viniciusjl@ig.com.br> writes:

> martin rudalics wrote:
>>>> Could whoever installed the following change:
>>>>
>>>>    2007-12-10  Yoni Rabkin Katzenell  <yoni-r@actcom.com>  (tiny
>>>> change)
>>>>    * file.el (revert-buffer): Eliminate overlays and the mark.
>>>>
>>>> replace the comment "Reset the mark and remove all overlays" which just
>>>> paraphrases the code, with a comment that actually explains why we
>>>> want/need to do that?
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not explained in etc/TODO file.
>>>
>>> The patch refers to this line in etc/TODO file:
>>>
>>>    ** revert-buffer should eliminate overlays and the mark.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone know why this is necessary?
>>
>> I'm afraid the patch installed is overly simplistic.  You can find out
>> more by looking at the thread starting with
>>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-11/msg01346.html
>>
>> For the moment I'd strongly propose to revert the change and study the
>> problem in more depth.
>
> Ok, I've read the thread.  Indeed, the problem is not so simple.
>
> I've just undone the patch in CVS trunk.

After reading that thread (which I neglected to do beforehand, sorry) I
still think that revert-buffer should remove all overlays and the mark.

My reasoning is based on the way revert-buffer is implemented, which is
to work for a simple default scenario, and to hand off any more complex
reverting to other modes via `revert-buffer-function', which replaces
revert-buffer's actions entirely if defined. For this reason, I don't
see any one fix which would solve the problem for all modes.

In any case, could you please install the docstring portion of the
patch? It is a better description of what `revert-buffer-function'
does. If needed, I can send in a patch which does only that.

-- 
   "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"