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: undo bug? Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:25:33 -0400 Message-ID: References: <47F21FEB.401@gmx.at> <47F28479.3030605@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1207113368 9675 80.91.229.12 (2 Apr 2008 05:16:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 05:16:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Katsumi Yamaoka , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 02 07:16:38 2008 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 1JgvKt-0008Qj-SE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:16:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JgvKH-0003m0-B2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:15:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JgvKB-0003lj-Bl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:15:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JgvK8-0003kZ-D4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:15:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JgvK8-0003kU-10 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:15:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JgvK7-00037O-SU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:15:47 -0400 Original-Received: from vpn-132-204-232-167.acd.umontreal.ca ([132.204.232.167] helo=ceviche.home) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jgm6y-0002l0-2h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:25:38 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 5E23FB40F9; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:25:33 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Greylist: delayed 12549 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at nadesico; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:25:35 EDT 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:94169 Archived-At: >> I'm wondering why we have to use last_point_position. >> It seems to be asking for problems because it is delimited by command >> processing, whereas the undo records are delimited by undo-boundary: >> there is a correlation between the two, but no equivalence. >> >> I.e. I suggest we introduce last_undo_boundary_pos and use it in place >> of last_point_position in undo.c. >> It'd be set to PT in Fundo_boundary (which could/should also set >> last_undo_buffer). > Couldn't we do away with undo-boundaries and always undo until the next > recorded position of `point'? In theory we could, but that may break various packages: of all the supported undo records, the "undo-boundary" is probably the only one that is used by external packages ;-( Instead the current code tries to only insert a point-record when it's actually necessary. Stefan