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: Edebug corrupting point in buffers. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:12:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: <838rkud9d5.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8nybnuk.fsf@gnu.org> <83pme6bls8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9247"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 02 14:13:44 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 1oqDYt-0002El-Ur for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 14:13:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqDYP-0004dy-DT; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:13:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqDYN-0004dQ-0A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:13:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqDYJ-0000qf-LA; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:13:08 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DB885807CB; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0F042804FC; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:12:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1667394779; bh=75QM1fCmQw/Ud/qBBD41cK6oKl1AVbQvi33hhEKqt7M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=SqgIujNz7bWWp5nJAtOkHRjKE/8qKmC0GexDQXZKZg+yd6bQyNR6SG3mPv7CNg+qN /s8f5Gez3fy+oHJ42TvHCE/gF/QQZsZEPAUZEWynVhgVN82Q1EiorqrEIgITesWf+i TMC3NzOjGBHiBpKbGzfRWXxHOqS4j9AJMpWmKXRpvJT2TNrFo2Dwhn4N84VIEyxhXh y3aTml8nStFuscZx2SYGdZXO+tm6gF2eUwSNJwKrkElGGSdhn6XALpd83C0Y4uajOs Y+eRLRFCn0020c/nhtVqk4ZCsct6ve3olHcH8IJAPND0Bm8CK9mWicxlrvUcUMh3rr Hqo4pRRwnGyAA== Original-Received: from pastel (65-110-220-202.cpe.pppoe.ca [65.110.220.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B849C120FEE; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:12:58 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:40:59 +0000") 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 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: , Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:299011 Archived-At: >> Really? My reading of the code: > >> /* As documented in Fcurrent_window_configuration, don't >> restore the location of point in the buffer which was >> current when the window configuration was recorded. */ >> if (!EQ (p->buffer, new_current_buffer) >> && XBUFFER (p->buffer) == current_buffer) >> Fgoto_char (w->pointm); > >> is that it's done only for the current buffer and only if it's different >> from the "to be current buffer". > >> Am I missing something? > > Hmm. I spent a great deal of yesterday asserting false things, then > apologising for them. The above was the last such false thing, for which > I also apologise. If we had to apologize every time we misread/misunderstood code, we'd never get anywhere :-) > There's clearly been a lot of confusion about window/buffer point over > the decades which shows in the number of places such changes in buffer > point occur, and the bugs which have sometimes resulted, like the one > you cite above. This is arguably one of the most subtle/delicate/complex aspect of ELisp's semantics, indeed. Stefan