From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 99c637499e: Only apply last change to the clipboard Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 08:41:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <164368163944.24305.8528536193885928245@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220201021359.C439EC40717@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <8735l3cg7b.fsf@yahoo.com> <87tudjavb2.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27084"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 01 17:22:45 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nEvvY-0006q3-UN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 17:22:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57604 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nEvvX-0000FZ-4d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:22:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51304) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nEuaP-0007X9-Sv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:56:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:1103) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nEuaH-0002fh-M5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:56:43 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A838100184; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:30 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C565210000D; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:28 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1643722888; bh=vYy2rLfGoQPqLC2Y+50HwWnBhAoJusUTefoqj1Q2Kdk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=PAx6iD6I/mbKzNqmuFcrLb7hoC0Mt1pla2ofQS3EClNBeVBDT7gPZ9+cAsYOuYRIE HPZ8H5YlkvQuGFjR0QyGR0Uxep7tYQ/4+UafB4/aofLT72T5rjjFOBz5V6LMJOqKhj rfcwhH7MYUYNh8SPXi2tDGoafK6jfZlwgYrQhLAZOWOAgOpvn4wLaz/z9QeYY18KV3 SijkRXKYIiydTi/4pzPXsdwQ9OAvEYWU00GYA87bVDpw1e3rn8U+yR13LTWEbLX5kM vBVFnFufn4Jko2gutUigsrlfoOytBN2caUcEXhKk5IeQasweLlxtu8IJOi7U48KMl6 Ai23q5kgANfVQ== Original-Received: from pastel (76-10-138-212.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.138.212]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A03CF1205E6; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87tudjavb2.fsf@yahoo.com> (Po Lu's message of "Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:40:49 +0800") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:285729 Archived-At: Po Lu [2022-02-01 15:40:49] wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: >>> The problem is that I don't really know why it doesn't work on those >>> ports. I just observed them returning nonsensical values. >> Even if we don't know why, it'd be cleaner to put it there than here. > How would you know when it should return `dontknow', when there is no > way to determine if it's returning an incorrect value? Always? Stefan