all messages for Emacs-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
@ 2007-03-31  0:55 Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  2007-03-31  8:18 ` Andreas Schwab
  2007-03-31 20:42 ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2007-03-31  0:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Emacs Devel

Should not pending-undo-list be permanent buffer local?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31  0:55 pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local? Lennart Borgman (gmail)
@ 2007-03-31  8:18 ` Andreas Schwab
  2007-03-31  9:11   ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  2007-03-31 20:42 ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2007-03-31  8:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Emacs Devel

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Should not pending-undo-list be permanent buffer local?

It is only used when undo is called immediately after undo, any other
command will break the chain.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31  8:18 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2007-03-31  9:11   ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  2007-03-31 10:10     ` Andreas Schwab
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2007-03-31  9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andreas Schwab; +Cc: Emacs Devel

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Should not pending-undo-list be permanent buffer local?
> 
> It is only used when undo is called immediately after undo, any other
> command will break the chain.


Thanks, but why should it not be permanent buffer local then?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31  9:11   ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
@ 2007-03-31 10:10     ` Andreas Schwab
  2007-03-31 10:33       ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2007-03-31 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Emacs Devel

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks, but why should it not be permanent buffer local then?

Why should it?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31 10:10     ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2007-03-31 10:33       ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  2007-03-31 10:52         ` Andreas Schwab
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2007-03-31 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andreas Schwab; +Cc: Emacs Devel

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Thanks, but why should it not be permanent buffer local then?
> 
> Why should it?


The reason I am asking is that I thought that there might be a chance 
that a kill-all-local-variables caused caused by the undo command might 
erase it. I am not at all sure that this is the case, but I am currently 
testing and at least with that change (permanent buffer local) I can not 
currently see the problems I saw before.

Can you see any way it can be erased by kill-all-local-variables before 
it should?

And my original question: Can you see any problems with making this 
variable permanent buffer local? (And are there perhaps other variables 
involved in undo that should also be permanent buffer local?)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31 10:33       ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
@ 2007-03-31 10:52         ` Andreas Schwab
  2007-03-31 10:57           ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2007-03-31 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Emacs Devel

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Can you see any way it can be erased by kill-all-local-variables before it
> should?

There is no way to interactively cause kill-all-local-variables to be
executed between two calls to undo without breaking the undo chain,
thereby causing pending-undo-list to be reset by the next undo (via
undo-start).

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31 10:52         ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2007-03-31 10:57           ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  2007-03-31 11:11             ` Andreas Schwab
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2007-03-31 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andreas Schwab; +Cc: Emacs Devel

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Can you see any way it can be erased by kill-all-local-variables before it
>> should?
> 
> There is no way to interactively cause kill-all-local-variables to be
> executed between two calls to undo without breaking the undo chain,
> thereby causing pending-undo-list to be reset by the next undo (via
> undo-start).


Are you sure this true even if kill-all-local-variables are called from 
post-command-hook or from a timer? If so can you please explain to me why?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31 10:57           ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
@ 2007-03-31 11:11             ` Andreas Schwab
  2007-03-31 11:36               ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2007-03-31 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Emacs Devel

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Are you sure this true even if kill-all-local-variables are called from
> post-command-hook or from a timer? If so can you please explain to me why?

It doesn't matter anyway, since pending-undo-list isn't buffer-local in
the first place.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31 11:11             ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2007-03-31 11:36               ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2007-03-31 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andreas Schwab; +Cc: Emacs Devel

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Are you sure this true even if kill-all-local-variables are called from
>> post-command-hook or from a timer? If so can you please explain to me why?
> 
> It doesn't matter anyway, since pending-undo-list isn't buffer-local in
> the first place.

Thanks, looks like a good argument here.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
  2007-03-31  0:55 pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local? Lennart Borgman (gmail)
  2007-03-31  8:18 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2007-03-31 20:42 ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2007-03-31 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: emacs-devel

    Should not pending-undo-list be permanent buffer local?

As far as I can see, it cannot ever make a difference.  That variable
is only used within a sequence of consecutive undo commands, and they
don't change the major mode.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-31 20:42 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-31  0:55 pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local? Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-03-31  8:18 ` Andreas Schwab
2007-03-31  9:11   ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-03-31 10:10     ` Andreas Schwab
2007-03-31 10:33       ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-03-31 10:52         ` Andreas Schwab
2007-03-31 10:57           ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-03-31 11:11             ` Andreas Schwab
2007-03-31 11:36               ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-03-31 20:42 ` Richard Stallman

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.