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: Uninformative comment in files.el Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:29 -0500 Message-ID: References: <475EF93E.3060203@ig.com.br> <475F0992.2030307@gmx.at> <475F45EB.2070704@ig.com.br> <87mysg1l17.fsf@actcom.com> <87wsrftic6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1197879890 26565 80.91.229.12 (17 Dec 2007 08:24:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: yoni-r@actcom.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:01 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 1J4BHX-0003lq-2r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:24:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4BHD-00073n-C9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J4BH7-00071x-7Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:33 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J4BH5-00070p-2M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:32 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4BH4-00070i-Pu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:30 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J4BH4-0005j1-Cp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:30 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J4BH3-0005uq-0D; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:29 -0500 In-reply-to: <87wsrftic6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (stephen@xemacs.org) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:85202 Archived-At: Well, one (and possibly more) whole-buffer overlay(s) is a consequence of an obvious strategy to implement a top-down parser. Ie, wrap each non-terminal parsed with an overlay to carry annotations as you return from recursive levels. At least, it was obvious to me when I did it. Maybe you're right, but even though one of the many overlays in this would cover the whole buffer, it would also make other overlays, smaller than the whole buffer, which would get messed up by reverting.