From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 22 branch created. Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:13:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <871wi9jw37.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <462E7B94.3000008@gnu.org> <462F0A07.50104@gnu.org> <864pn4an8j.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86zm4w97du.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <20070425195026.GA19472@printf.se> <20070427133832.22F374DD5F@rocksteady.printf.se> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178065020 7279 80.91.229.12 (2 May 2007 00:17:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 00:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: henrik.enberg@telia.com, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 02 02:16:59 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hj2Wb-0005Gf-7B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 02:16:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj2cw-0002E9-KH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 20:23:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj2cQ-0001rE-GQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 20:22:54 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj2cP-0001pc-JF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 20:22:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj2cP-0001pC-EE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 20:22:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hj2W3-0001Ej-8E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 20:16:19 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hj2TI-0001ej-Tt; Tue, 01 May 2007 20:13:28 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 01 May 2007 12:44:01 -0400) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:70461 Archived-At: > And of course very inefficient when you'll constantly be editing a very > large rmail buffer. > Not really, because the gap makes such operations efficient. It just reduces the inefficiency. It makes them plenty efficient enough. Remember, the same issue arises in Rmail, and it isn't a problem. > The other approach also needs peculiar changes in lower-level features > to work right. Various operations on the message buffer would have to > operate on the file buffer as well. These include set-buffer-file-name, > rename-buffer, as well as saving. Those other features can all be done at the UI-level, where they belong, not at a low level. At the very least, it's all done in elisp, without any need to fiddle with C code. I don't think that is true. Changes in set-buffer-file-name and rename-buffer would have to be done at the C level. And I expect we would find other low-level facilities that would need such changing. With my approach, we can be sure that only the operating of writing a file needs changing.