From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] fix/no-undo-boundary-on-secondary-buffer-change f59d1be: Move undo amalgamation to lisp. Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:56:37 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20151005134118.10933.50859@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87h9m52sh8.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87h9lqbk8m.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87mvvc9g3m.fsf@russet.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445882238 12876 80.91.229.3 (26 Oct 2015 17:57:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 26 18:57:09 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zqm13-0000vb-Ta for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 18:57:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54397 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zqm13-0006VJ-Cb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:57:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44097) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zqm0j-0006SK-Bl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:56:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zqm0e-0006co-8c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:56:45 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:39436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zqm0e-0006cf-4K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:56:40 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CtCwA731xV/zCdWxdcgxCEAsEMCYdLBAICgTw5FAEBAQEBAQGBCkEFg10BAQMBViMFCws0BwsUGA2IWwjPIwEBAQcCAR+LOoUFB4QtBbUEI4FmVYFZIoJ4AQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0CtCwA731xV/zCdWxdcgxCEAsEMCYdLBAICgTw5FAEBAQEBAQGBCkEFg10BAQMBViMFCws0BwsUGA2IWwjPIwEBAQcCAR+LOoUFB4QtBbUEI4FmVYFZIoJ4AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,465,1427774400"; d="scan'208";a="171665036" Original-Received: from 23-91-157-48.cpe.pppoe.ca (HELO pastel.home) ([23.91.157.48]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2015 13:56:38 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 6C84F60036; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:56:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87mvvc9g3m.fsf@russet.org.uk> (Phillip Lord's message of "Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:27:57 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:192672 Archived-At: > But, after self-insert-command, actually, undo-undoably-changed-buffers > tells all the buffers that were modified since the last time we added an > auto-boundary. This will only be the same as the buffers which have > changed as a result of self-insert-command iff > undo-undoably-changed-buffers was nil before the command. It need not be > if buffers are undoably-changing as a result of a timer or a process for > instance. Indeed, with process filters and such there's a real probability that this isn't the case. I think we can avoid this problem by making self-insert-command explicitly call undo-auto-boundaries at its end. > My other concern is that after a self-insert-command, I can guarantee > that the current-buffer hasn't changed much (normally by one char). But, > for example, with lentic a self-insert-command in one buffer can in > worse case result in all the characters in another buffer changing. In the worst case self-insert-command can also change the whole buffer. So the worst case is not nearly as important as the "reasonably expectable cases". > So amalgamating these changes might result in a big buffer-undo-list. I don't see how/why the size of buffer-undo-list would be affected. Stefan