From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al.
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:23:04 -0500
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E18cVtQ-0002g8-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <buo65sgp7w8.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
	<buod6mn84kr.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1043522759 14327 80.91.224.249 (25 Jan 2003 19:25:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:25:59 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18cVwE-0003iv-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 20:25:58 +0100
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 18cVza-0004Tr-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 20:29:26 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18cVvt-0006iR-03
	for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:25:37 -0500
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18cVuC-0005tj-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:23:52 -0500
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18cVtf-0005WQ-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:23:20 -0500
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18cVtR-0005DB-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:23:05 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 18cVtQ-0002g8-00; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:23:04 -0500
Original-To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
In-reply-to: <buod6mn84kr.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp> (message from Miles
	Bader on 24 Jan 2003 15:06:12 +0900)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:11058
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11058

    Since the suggested change would only effect narrowed buffers, and only
    to make them act more like a normal non-narrowed buffer, I would think
    that only code that explicitly uses narrowing is potentially a problem
    (under the assumption that a narrowed buffer should usually appear to
    lisp code as if it were a normal buffer containing only the narrowed
    region).

This reasoning is plausible indeed, but I still think that whoever
changes this should also check the callers one buy one.